It is becoming increasingly clear that in politics in general, and democratic politics in India in particular, random emotions and moods seem to matter more than a calm, composed approach to ideologies or a hard look at facts.
Published Mar 24, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 24, 2025 | 9:17 AM
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, actor Vicky Kaushal in 'Chhava'.
Synopsis: Whether the Congress admits it or not, likes it or not, religion as the basis for reservation in jobs or contracts is something that seems to violate the Constitution of India as well as provide ample grist to the BJP’s political mill.
What is the connection between the Congress government of Karnataka passing a Bill that reserves four percent of public works contracts for Muslims have to do with the raging controversy and violent street protests on 17th Century Mughal emperor Aurangzeb?
On the face of it, there is none, but it is time to reiterate that the two are now almost umbilically linked by a modern factor called democratic politics and strengthened by the visual magic of digital-age filmmaking.
I have to take you back to the 1980s to get some clarity on the issue.
It was in 1986 that the gates of the controversial Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya were open to worshippers of an idol of Lord Rama, triggering a movement of a Ram temple at the spot that is now a reality.
It was in the same year that the Congress government at the Centre reversed a controversial law following a Supreme Court ruling of 1985 by the then-Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud that upheld the payment of maintenance to a Muslim woman, Shah Bano.
The two events of 1986 got intertwined and led to the rise of the BJP, which accused the Congress of “appeasement” and/or “vote bank” politics. Little seems to have changed in the ideologies of the Congress or the BJP since then — but a lot has changed in India.
That is where it is essential to criticise the championing of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill that the BJP says is “unconstitutional”. My feeling is that it is indeed unconstitutional, though I will await any informed judicial view as a counter.
India’s reservation policy to help disadvantaged groups allows special deals for other backward classes (OBCs). Often, OBCs are described as referring to “castes” though the word here includes backward sections of all religious communities.
In that sense, a quota for Muslims is valid if the beneficiary Muslims can be transparently categorised among OBCs or Scheduled Castes (as Pasmanda Muslims are). That does not seem to be the case here.
So what does Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah seek to achieve through this? The simple answer is that he wants to consolidate minority Muslims — what the BJP will call “vote bank” or “appeasement” politics.
What has changed since 1986 is that the BJP has successfully sold its ideas enough to amass a huge section of Hindus, including OBCs, to embrace its narrative so much so that we almost have a casteless Hindu vote bank now in large parts of the country — including Karnataka. The size of the vote bank may vary between states — but it exists.
Whether the Congress admits it or not, likes it or not, religion as the basis for reservation in jobs or contracts is something that seems to violate the Constitution of India as well as provide ample grist to the BJP’s political mill.
Here is where the Aurangzeb controversy also kicks in. Protests erupted in Nagpur as Hindu groups protested against a tomb for the Mughal ruler in the state.
No one seems to have bothered about the nondescript tomb for centuries but the recent release of ‘Chhava’, a Bollywood biopic on Sambhaji, the son of Maratha ruler Shivaji who took on Aurangzeb successfully, has kindled old group memories with a tilted view of history — enough to set Hindu mobs on a riotous rampage.
Rumours that trigger Muslim anger completed the picture.
I watched learned historians in a television debate pointing out that Aurangzeb had Hindu kings in his imperial Mughal army, and that he imposed his infamous jizya tax on Hindus only 22 years into this 50-year reign. In simple language, Aurangzeb was only a politician of his time, desperate to invoke religion to boost his power and divide communities.
It is also pointed out that Sambhaji slayed some of his courtiers in the politics of intrigue and rivalry suggesting that the Mughal-Maratha conflict was more about politics and ambition than communities.
Do learned historians matter in a war of powerful Bollywood imagery and petty vote-bank politics? Sadly not.
It is becoming increasingly clear that in politics in general, and democratic politics in India in particular, random emotions and moods seem to matter more than a calm, composed approach to ideologies or a hard look at facts.
A spokesman for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of RSS, gave a nuanced view on Nagpur protests – saying Aurangzeb is not relevant today but his tomb is. We can certainly ask why it took so long for the RSS to realise this.
Meanwhile, the ‘Bollywoodisation’ of Indian politics is complete now with a series of movies that smack of propaganda and half-truths that rely on hearsay and powerful imagery. Whipped-up emotions play a big role in politics and populist democracies, even more so.
This is precisely why I feel Siddaramaiah’s Muslim quota bill is not only unconstitutional but also smacks of an instance of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. It is electorally suicidal, and politically ill-advised in addition to being substantially unconstitutional, if not technically so.
I do see in the Karnataka chief minister’s action a tendency or desire to outwit various kinds of rivals, both inside and outside his party. Relative to states like Uttar Pradesh, religious polarisation is indeed much less of a factor in the South. But Karnataka is nearly there. If the BJP bounces back in Karnataka, you know what to blame – and who.
One hopes the central leadership of the Indian National Congress sheds some light on this and disciplines Siddaramaiah. If this is not done, his Bill will lead to the BJP gaining not only in Karnataka but in other states as well.
Loud, brash Bollywood movies, packed with action, evoking pride and anger rather than wisdom and justice, are the order of the day. People love heroic antics and love stories.
Half-baked biopics, history flicks and movie adaptations of recent military actions play on this formula. Digital technologies that make colourful shooting as easy as moving graphics on a computer make the task easier.
Politicians love propaganda. People love hero stories. Producers love blockbusters. The three meet in today’s Bollywoodised democracy. Narratives are often guided by noise and imagery. Historians and statesmen be damned!
(The writer is a senior journalist and commentator who has worked for Reuters, The Economic Times, Business Standard, and Hindustan Times. He posts on X as @madversity. Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
