Equal Law, Equal Accountability

Decades of Selective Enforcement, Vote-Bank Politics, and the Democratic Imperative

Summary

The perception of unequal treatment of speech, belief, and accountability in India is not new. It has existed since Independence, largely driven by vote-bank politics and differential policy enforcement aimed at appeasing specific communities—particularly the Muslim vote bank.
For decades, statements targeting Hindu beliefs, Sanatana Dharma, or the civilisational majority were normalized as “progressive critique,” while Hindu reactions—often defensive—were criminalized or sensationalized.
Since 2014, the situation has improved to some extent. The current government has acknowledged these distortions and initiated reforms.
However, progress has been uneven and slow due to persistent resistance from opposition parties (the so-called Thugbandhan), sections of the judiciary shaped by pre-2014 ideological thinking, entrenched bureaucracy, and a largely biased media ecosystem.
As a result, hate speech and intimidation by certain opposition-linked political and religious figures continue largely unchecked, while similar or milder speech from Hindus triggers immediate punitive action.
It is now urgent—for democratic stability and social harmony—that these issues be addressed strictly on constitutional principles, without fear, favor, or appeasement.

1. A Long Historical Context: Not a New Problem

Since 1947, Indian politics has been heavily influenced by electoral arithmetic rather than civilisational balance.
Over decades:
Policies were framed with community-specific sensitivities, not equal citizenship.
Enforcement of law was often selective, guided by fears of “minority alienation.”
Political elites institutionalized the idea that some sentiments are protected, while others are expendable.
Outcome: A culture developed where:
Criticism of Hindu beliefs was normalized as “reform” or “progress.”
Any Hindu pushback was framed as “majoritarianism.”
This asymmetry hardened into institutional habit.

2.Vote-Bank Appeasement and Differential Enforcement

Muslim vote-bank politics became a central pillar of electoral strategy for Congress and later its allies.
To protect this consolidation:
Provocative statements from Muslim leaders or allied politicians were downplayed.
Administrative and police action was often delayed or diluted.
Media narratives justified such speech as “identity assertion.”
In contrast, Hindu voices—monks, scholars, activists, or even private citizens—were:
Criminalized quickly
Subjected to public humiliation
Treated as threats to “secularism”
This was not equality—it was selective secularism.

3. Post-2014: Recognition and Partial Course Correction

After 2014, a major shift occurred:
Long-ignored problems were formally acknowledged.
Governance focus moved from appeasement to welfare without declared religious bias.
National security, institutional efficiency, and civilisational confidence were restored to the agenda.
However, progress has been constrained because:
Opposition parties deliberately politicize every corrective step.
Judicial processes, shaped by decades of ideological interpretation, often slow or stall implementation.
Bureaucratic inertia from the pre-2014 era resists change.
Media ecosystems amplify allegations selectively, creating pressure asymmetry.
Thus, while direction has changed, ground-level enforcement imbalance still persists.

4. Continuing Double Standards in Speech and Accountability

Citizens increasingly notice that
Statements attacking Sanatana Dharma, Hindu symbols, or Hindu society:
Are justified as “political rhetoric”
Face little or no sustained legal consequence
Statements by Hindu speakers—even reactive or defensive ones:
Trigger immediate FIRs
Invite arrests
Lead to prolonged media trials
This continuity from pre-2014 to present, though reduced, has not been eliminated.

5. Judiciary and Media: The Ideological Lag

Many judicial interpretations still reflect:
A colonial-era suspicion of the civilisational majority
An assumption that “majority speech = threat”

Media institutions:
Remain staffed and editorially guided by pre-2014 ideological frameworks
Shape narratives before facts or due process
Result: Even well-intentioned reforms struggle to achieve constitutional symmetry.

6. Why This Cannot Be Ignored Any Longer

Continued imbalance leads to:
Loss of faith in institutions
Escalation of rhetoric as communities feel unheard
Defensive radicalization on all sides
Governance paralysis due to constant litigation and narrative warfare
A democracy cannot survive indefinitely on perceived injustice.

7. What Constitutional Neutrality Demands—Urgently

This moment requires responsible, urgent correction, not rhetoric:
Uniform legal thresholds for hate speech across communities
Time-bound action on all complaints, irrespective of identity
Transparent reasoning when cases are closed
Judicial restraint from ideological interpretation
Media accountability for prejudicial trials
This is not repression—it is equal protection of law.

Conclusion: From Appeasement to Constitutional Courage

For decades, India paid the price of appeasement-driven governance.
Since 2014, the country has begun correcting course—but the legacy systems still resist.
The choice now is clear:
Either continue tolerating asymmetric justice, or
Enforce the Constitution as written, not as politically interpreted
Equality before law is not optional. It is the foundation of the Republic.

Final Thought

Appeasement created silence.
Silence bred resentment.
Resentment threatens unity.
Only equal law, applied fearlessly and fairly, can restore trust and harmony.

🇮🇳Jai Bharat, Vandematram 🇮🇳

Read our previous blogs 👉 Click here