Religious Identity Politics & Selective Secularism: Congress–Thugbandhan Strategy

After 2014, the Congress–Thugbandhan shifted its political focus from governance and development to religious identity and selective secularism. Through state legislatures, laws are being proposed that, under the banner of constitutional strategy, raise questions on equal citizenship, due process, and fundamental rights. This article presents a brief analysis of the impact and risks of this identity-based constitutional strategy.

Politics of Identity After Losing Power

After losing power at the Centre in 2014, congress and thugbandhan chose identity-based appeasement as their primary strategy instead of competing on governance, development, national security, and institutional reforms.
Many proposals presented in the language of social justice and sensitivity raise serious questions about the intent and process of law-making.
The concern is not with justice or welfare—both are core constitutional values—but with frameworks that open the door to selective persecution.

State Assemblies: Laboratories of Unacceptable Ideas

After facing resistance at the national level, some state legislatures are increasingly being used as testing grounds for controversial proposals.

Emotional language is employed, while constitutional scrutiny remains limited.
Vague provisions grant excessive discretion to the executive.
Safeguards against misuse are weak or absent.
Vote-bank signalling takes precedence over durable reform.

Consequences:

Ideas unacceptable in national discourse become normalised at the local level.
The Constitution is subjected to political pressure.
Legal uncertainty itself becomes a political weapon.

Rohith Vemula–Type Proposals in Karnataka: When Process Becomes Punishment

Mandatory action based on minimal preliminary inquiry.
Administrative or disciplinary penalties imposed before judicial determination.
Time-bound procedures that force institutions into a defensive posture.
In practice, the burden of proof shifts to the accused.

Constitutional Impact:

Erosion of Article 14 (equality before law).
Violation of Article 21 (due process and personal liberty).
Reversal of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Institutionalisation of grievance-based politics.

Hate Speech Bill jn Karnatka: Abuse of Vagueness

Use of highly subjective terms such as “hurt sentiment,” “offence,” and “hatred”.
Absence of clear, objective definitions and standards.
Excessive scope for arbitrary executive interpretation.

Risks:

Weakening of Article 19 (freedom of expression).
Criminalisation of dissent, satire, academic inquiry, and religious discourse.
High likelihood of one-sided enforcement, intensifying political polarisation.

Religion-Based Reservation: Deviation from Purpose

Attempts to introduce religion-specific quotas or reclassification.
Departure from the original purpose of reservation—redressal of historical social injustice.
Welfare reduced to identity arithmetic.

Constitutional Conflict:

Incompatibility with the principle of equality.
Undermining the moral legitimacy of affirmative action.
Potential conflict with Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Sachar Committee in Parliament: From Diagnosis to Politics

The Sachar Committee was originally a diagnostic study identifying gaps in education, employment, and access to resources.

Its objective was need-based, inclusive solutions.

However, selective findings were used to justify identity-first policies.

Focus shifted from poverty alleviation to religion-centric entitlements.

However, the proposal could not be implemented due to instituational opposition.

Communal Violence Bil in Parliamentl: A Prior Warning

Concepts such as group liability.
Expansion of executive power with weak safeguards.
Risk of presumption based on identity.

Its failure due to repeated opposition by BJP prevented passage of the bill and sent a clear message: identity-based penal laws damage equal citizenship and hence are constitutionally not acceptable.