As India completed 75 years of independence, it compelled introspection on the idea of Indian nationalism and secularism. More so, in the light of Bharat Ratna awarded to Mr LK Advani – the titan of Right Wing politics.
Let us revisit the two spectacular political marches from 20th-century history that had a transformative effect on India’s political scenario—Mahatma Gandhi’s 1930 Dandi Salt March during the freedom struggle and LK Advani’s 1990 Hindutva Rath Yatra. A look at the two events provides us with logical insights into their leading characters’ differing visions of Indian identity. Let us not forget that both events had stirred up mass sentiment by using potent symbolism.
Backdrop: Crumbling Raj Versus Fading Congress Dominance
1930 was marked by growing dissatisfaction against British policies burdening common Indians through repressive taxation, laws and non-redressal of political rights. Non-cooperation movement had emerged but lacked coherent direction. It was in 1929 that Congress resolved on complete independence through peaceful, legitimate means. Gandhiji assessed the mood and brewing unrest to conceive the Salt Satyagraha.
In contrast, 1989 saw Congress’s dominance fade away after four decades of single-party rule. Socialists and Jan Sangh had briefly held power highlighting a growing appetite for political alternatives. There were clear indications that religion was becoming a factor in the political discourse. BJP championed Hindu nationalism to expand the space vacated by Congress. Advani recalibrated the BJP’s strategy using religion-based mass mobilisation by launching the Rath Yatra.
Ideological Mooring: Inclusive Pluralism Versus Majoritarianism
Gandhiji’s conception of the Indian freedom struggle was rooted in equal rights and stakes for all citizens, regardless of identities. His vision was moulded by his experience of racism abroad. Therefore, he rejected the exclusion of minorities. Every aspect of the march from its multi-faith composition to repeated stress on Hindu-Muslim amity reflected Gandhiji’s nationhood anchored in empathy, cutting across man-made divisions. Gandhiji protested against the salt laws because the use of salt was universal, and the rise in its price affected the poor across religions.
In contrast, Advani’s Rath Yatra vision was fashioned on the premises of identity politics, which fed on alienation and conflict. It tapped into Hindu victimhood and lost glory, resurrecting the century-old Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. The narrative focused on the erection of Babri Masjid after destroying Ram’s birthplace. It pitched the mosque’s destruction as an atonement for historical wrongs by Muslim rulers. It mobilised mass Hindu resentment and resurrected communal memories while viewing Indian identity only through Hindu icons.
Potent Messaging: Everyday Essential Versus Faith Symbolism
Gandhi picked salt to protest unfair taxation—a basic necessity for Indians irrespective of social status. By positioning the state’s oppressive restrictions as hampering millions from accessing their staple food, Gandhi framed Swaraj as not just political freedom but economic justice and liberation from poverty. The Dandi march was engineered around this universal right and denial, drawing people across caste, class, and regional barriers.
Advani repackaged the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi temple cause around the journey of a symbolic chariot undertaking a pan-India sojourn for Lord Rama. It evoked Hindu cultural exclusivity rendered as the return of prestige to Hindus after alleged historical humiliations, making their identity synonymous with ancient Hindu kingdoms. The Rath, with Portraits of Ram-Sita, became an exhibit drumming up religious fervour and forging common identity around faith symbols rather than everyday rights.
Meticulous Organisation for Maximum Spectacle
Gandhi involved all Congress Presidencies in the detailed planning of the 24-day march. Its route touched many villages vital for night halts and food. Well-drafted speeches attacking unjust taxation that condemned the poor to poverty elicited mass emotion along the route. From what satyagrahis wore to their nightly prayer routines to every other detail were strategised, anticipating government crackdowns. It became a spectacle as foreign journalists picked up minor details, given Gandhi’s global stature post-South Africa success.
Likewise, Advani consulted RSS and VHP to plan the daily schedule several weeks in advance, including how to attract the masses to the Rath. It halted at historical Hindu monuments, and major metro cities allowing for renewed media hype. Advani lambasted ‘pseudo-secularists’ in speeches calling on Hindus to reclaim lost dignity. His crafted narrative dubbed siding with Babri Masjid as endorsing tyranny against Hinduism. The Rath Yatra gained exponential attention thanks to TV cameras broadcasting the Rath showcasing the Hindu deities, which attracted vast crowds.
Triggering Mass Frenzy Through Careful Orchestration
Gandhiji’s march touched an emotional chord because it showed ordinary people undertaking extraordinary struggles. By the time Gandhiji raised a fistful of natural salt at the Dandi beach violating British law, the stage was set for eruption. Careful pamphleteering ensured widespread awareness; dharma prayers and bhajans infused spiritual flavour, alighting fervour. People emulated civil disobedience by producing salt illegally as arrests peaked.
Advani’s Rath Yatra succeeded in its aim through months of drum beating about the roadshow, wanting to liberate Ram Janmabhoomi despite obstacles. The metaphor of the lone chariot taking the message nationally swelled Hindu passions with Advani portrayed as a warrior. Timing it with Ramshila Pujan, Advani ensured the limelight for his project. When Advani was arrested en route, it triggered an immediate backlash and calls for united Hindu action in defiance; thus solidifying his strategy.
Legacy of Integrating versus Divisive Nationalism
Gandhiji’s march birthed a constitutional civil disobedience movement that awakened national consciousness and unity against imperialism. By walking over 390 km across communities, Gandhi amplified inter-faith bonds. He rebutted communal distrust as dangerous for Swaraj, a legacy that endured even amidst the Partition’s carnage. Advani’s mass religious mobilisation dented the Gandhian legacy. It reopened and deepened religious faultiness, ratcheting up the politics of cultural nationalism at the cost of secular ethos. Advani set the foundations for the re-crafting of Indian nationalism by making it exclusive, instead of integrative, through Hindu-Muslim polarisation. Gandhiji’s politics was that of a visionary statesman, whereas Advani’s was an unapologetic attempt to solidify the sense of victimhood among Hindus and thus establish a lasting vote bank for the BJP.
Verdict: Spectacular Theatre Advancing Opposite Political Ideologies
Gandhiji and Advani’s marches reveal how elaborately crafted political spectacles channel mass opinion to advance different political ideologies. With iconic symbols tactically layered on secular everyday rights or religious myths woven around alleged historical wrongs, they framed nationalism and state’s role according to their respective worldviews. Their ability to capture public imagination through dramatic mobilisation remains unparalleled. The enduring and uncompromising clash between Gandhiji’s equitable pluralism and Advani’s selective glory resting on blood and belief, represents incompatible visions of Indian nationhood.
India at a Crossroads: Will Gandhi or Advani’s Legacy Define its Political Future?
As India marches ahead towards its centenary of independence in 2047, it stands at the cusp of a historic transition. On one hand, it can build on the Gandhian vision of inclusive and progressive nationhood. On the other, contemporary politics witnessed the rise of majoritarian nationalism that challenges pluralism. Revisiting the divergent legacies inherited from Gandhiji’s iconic Salt March during the freedom struggle and LK Advani’s watershed Hindutva Rath Yatra of 1990 offers clues to alternative political futures that await India.
Salt March Legacy: Vision of Pluralism and Socio-Economic Justice
Gandhiji’s satyagraha, unleashing civil disobedience against repressive British salt tax laws, left defining marks on India’s national consciousness. By choosing salt—a secular commodity central to the lives of rich and poor Indians alike—Gandhiji framed the struggle as one for securing both political freedom and economic emancipation. His ability to bring together diverse communities during the Dandi march sowed early seeds of unity in diversity. Repeated stress on Hindu Muslim amity and equality across castes and classes allowed the emergence of an integrative nationalism. In Gandhiji’s worldview, the rights and opportunities accessible to citizens from all social groups became a central promissory note of the Republic. Affirmative action, and minority rights enshrined in the constitution had a clear lineage to Gandhiji’s philosophy. Gandhiji’s Salt March captured global attention, amplifying moral voice against imperialism, and setting precedents for human rights movements worldwide.
This ability to stir empathetic public opinion by placing shared humanism at the centre—be it farmer protests or anti-corruption movements—continues to endure in contemporary India as well. Gandhian mass mobilisation privileged non-violent civil liberties over authoritarian diktats, which kept state excesses in check.
Rath Yatra Legacy: Scripting Majoritarian and Authoritarian Politics
In contrast, the political spectacle engineered by Advani’s Rath Yatra reopened old inter-faith disputes which kept the communal fault lines simmering. Its messaging invoked alleged historical wrongs against Hindus by Muslim rulers for electoral mobilisation of the majority community. By calling on Hindus to unite and reclaim lost honour tied to places of worship like Ayodhya, it amplified a sense of victimhood and past humiliations against one community. This philosophical mooring sought to strip the nation of its centuries-old composite culture. The Rath Yatra’s symbolism brought about religious consolidation. This has reduced Indian identity to only its Hindu heritage. BJP’s Hindu majoritarian ideology has a limited appetite for pluralism, which places minorities outside the mainstream.
Since Advani’s model relies on faith-based identity politics, it encourages an increased role of religion in electoral battles. Competitive communalism has led to growing majoritarian policies and the imposition of regressive discriminatory practices. Unlike Gandhiji, who had the moral authority to check the state’s authoritarian ambitions, the contemporary Indian state under this model has turned intolerant, displaying a penchant for clamping down on democratic dissent in the name of defending culture. This indicates a dangerous trajectory where brute force is used to suppress alternate viewpoints and impose the writ of an aggressive, exclusionary nationalism that undermines the foundational pluralism of India as envisaged by its Constitution.
Legacy More In Tune With India’s Constitutional Ethos Will Endure
Analysing past trajectories and current status, the Gandhian legacy of constructive rather than combative nationalism, his ability to secure liberation through mass awakening rather than capture of power appears more aligned with the egalitarian, progressive vision of India’s founding fathers. It allowed the gradual deepening of civic liberties and grassroots democracy. Gandhiji’s adherence to constitutional methods, non-violence and checking the state’s coercive powers enhances rather than undermines a common Indian identity. Compared to this, politics fashioned after Advani’s yatra has relied on propagating hate and wielding state apparatus for cultural dominance or electoral success. This risks undoing decades of nation-building.
As India looks ahead at 100 years of freedom, it stands at the cusp of history. There are two opposite choices before us. One is to follow, preserve and strengthen the Gandhian legacy of humanism by concretising the vision of our Republic’s founding fathers. The other is abandoning constitutional values and letting Advani’s communal polarisation legacy prevail. Which of the two choices will serve the people of India well? The answer is obvious. Is it to you also?
No comments:
Post a Comment