Appeasement and Selective Secularism under Congress & Thagbandhan rule

How Congress–Thugbandhan Politics Are Accused of Undermining Bharat’s Security, Sanatana Dharma, and Social Balance

1️⃣ Introduction: The Civilizational Question Before Bharat

For decades, a growing section of citizens and scholars have argued that Bharat’s challenges are not only economic or administrative, but civilizational.
The core allegation is that successive Congress-led governments and later opposition coalitions—often referred to as the Thugbandhan—adopted appeasement as governance, prioritizing vote-bank arithmetic over national interest, cultural equity, and internal security.

This critique focuses on policies, institutions, and ideologies, not on ordinary citizens of any faith.

2️⃣ Vote-Bank Politics as a Governing Doctrine

Critics allege that electoral survival became the primary objective, leading to:

Religion-based vote consolidation instead of inclusive national identity
Policy paralysis on sensitive issues for fear of electoral backlash
Repeated compromises on security, reform, and cultural balance

According to this view, appeasement was no longer tactical—it became systemic, shaping lawmaking, administration, and public narratives.

3️⃣ Selective Secularism and Institutional Asymmetry

A central charge is asymmetrical secularism, manifested through:

Extensive state control of Hindu temples (administration, revenue, appointments)
Relative autonomy for institutions of other faiths under minority protections
Diversion of temple revenues for non-religious purposes

Critics argue this produced a paradox:

The majority culture was regulated, while minority institutions were protected, undermining the principle of equal secularism.

4️⃣ Constitutional & Legal Engineering: Normalizing Imbalance

Over the years, critics point to:

Constitutional amendments and legal interpretations that expanded state reach into Hindu institutions
Legal frameworks that institutionalized unequal treatment under the banner of minority rights
Judicial and administrative precedents that discouraged cultural assertion by Hindus

This is described as legal normalization of imbalance, not a one-time policy error.

5️⃣ Ideological Ecosystem: Reframing Sanatana Identity

Parallel to policy, an ideological ecosystem allegedly evolved across:

Media discourse
Academic spaces
NGO networks
Cultural commentary

Key outcomes, as alleged:

Hindu identity portrayed as “majoritarian” by default
Sanatana practices framed as obstacles to modernity
Cultural self-respect equated with communalism

Over time, this narrative is said to have created cultural hesitation, even within institutions meant to be neutral.

6️⃣ National Security & Extremism: The Cost of Hesitation

Perhaps the gravest accusation concerns internal security:

Extremist ideologies allegedly downplayed to avoid political fallout
Terrorism framed narrowly as law-and-order issues, not ideological threats
Delays and dilution in action against radical networks

Critics argue this inconsistency emboldened jihadi, extremist, and separatist elements, who perceived weak political resolve.

7️⃣ Demographic Anxiety & Silenced Debate

Another recurring concern is the suppression of debate on:

Illegal immigration in sensitive regions
Coercive or fraudulent conversion practices
Population-based political manipulation
Cultural intimidation and local demographic pressure

Raising such issues was often dismissed as communal, critics say, preventing early intervention and policy correction.

8️⃣ Impact on Sanatana Dharma & Hindu Society

Taken together, these trends are alleged to have resulted in:

Reduced temple autonomy and community participation
Cultural self-doubt and defensive posture among Hindus
Bureaucratic and judicial reluctance to acknowledge civilizational context
A narrative where Sanatana Dharma must justify its existence

This, critics argue, weakened Bharat’s civilizational confidence.

9️⃣ Judicial Targeting: A Symptom of the Same Pattern

Recent controversies—such as pressure on judges who acknowledge Hindu customs or cultural symbols—are viewed as extensions of the same ideological conditioning.

Cultural recognition is framed as bias
Neutral symbols are politicized
Constitutional tools like impeachment are weaponized

This is seen as a threat to judicial independence and cultural neutrality.

🔟 Post-2014 Shift: A Claimed Course Correction

Supporters of post-2014 governance argue it represents:

Rejection of selective secularism
Restoration of equal respect for all traditions
Firmer stance on extremism and national security
Rebuilding confidence in Bharat’s civilizational roots

They describe this as rebalancing, not polarization.

1️⃣1️⃣ A Political Critique, Not a Communal Call

This narrative does not accuse ordinary citizens of any religion.
It critiques:

Appeasement as policy
Power hunger as ideology
Selective secularism as governance

The core demands emerging from this critique are:

Equal secularism, not asymmetry
Zero tolerance for extremism, regardless of vote-bank impact
Judicial independence free from ideological intimidation
Constitutional respect for Sanatana Dharma and all faiths

According to critics, Bharat’s long-term strength depends on civilizational confidence aligned with constitutional balance, not appeasement politics.

🇮🇳 Jai Bharat, Vandematram 🇮🇳

For old Blogs please visit our website www.saveindia108.in