The 2024 National Election was widely seen by Narendra Modi’s political opponents as a potential turning point. They believed this time would mark the end of his dominance, calculating that they could wrest power from his tight grip. There were several reasons behind their optimism, with many hoping that the narrative war they had carefully orchestrated before the election would finally take its toll. On the other hand, Modi’s government remained confident, convinced that its people-friendly policies, the nation’s domestic progress, its rising international stature, and Modi’s personal charisma as a global leader would secure it a comfortable majority. However, when the results were announced, Modi’s party faced a surprising setback, with political uncertainty casting a shadow over the future. Pundits across various factions discussed the possibility of an unexpected political shift, speculating on a potential rise in influence for Modi’s opponents. But, Modi and his NDA coalition comfortably crossed the threshold needed to form a government. As a result, Congress and its allies once again found themselves facing the sting of defeat, while their narrative of power equations collapsed.
This time, Congress entered the election campaign with a controversial strategy, advocating for a caste census—a move that many saw as an attempt to divide the majority Hindus along caste lines. This was also framed as a direct challenge to the Hindutva politics Modi had been accused of pursuing since 2014. Another key narrative pushed by Congress and its allies was the claim that “the Constitution was under threat,” which they widely circulated to undermine his government. The campaign wasn’t limited to just politicians; there were also coordinated efforts to mobilize human rights activists, intellectuals, and other groups to amplify these narratives. As usual, selective global media outlets joined in the campaign, further fueling the opposition's efforts. The ultimate goal was clear: to unseat the most popular leader of the time, who they viewed as a threat to their own political aspirations. I have been closely observing the political maneuvering by Congress, a party that has been out of power for over a decade, its once unchallenged dynasty now reduced to political irrelevance. Given this, their attempts to malign the government were unsurprising. However, as I flipped through the pages of Congress's history, I noticed a recurring pattern—a typical Congress instinct that has always seemed to harbor envy toward one particular community: the Hindus.
The Hindus have long been politically targeted by the party. Since India’s independence, Congress has left no stone unturned in diminishing their significance. The root cause of this audacity lies in the factionalism among Hindus. Congress understood the deep divisions within the Hindu community, particularly along caste lines, and recognized the most delicate link it could exploit to dismantle their unity. This behavior is not new to Congress. India’s hard-earned independence came at a great cost, the result of an unpardonable betrayal by Congress: the partition of the country along religious lines. This maneuver, led by Congress as the principal player, resulted in massive killings and the displacement of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress government is known to have deliberately neglected the Hindu refugees fleeing from Pakistan to India.
Sadly, the first Prime Minister of India showed little respect for Hindu traditions. Although Hindus were the majority in an independent India, Nehru labeled their cultural values as backward and dismissed them from being recognized as the soul of the nation. The Nehru-Liaquat Pact of 1950, signed between Prime Minister Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan of Pakistan, was meant to ensure the protection of minorities in both countries, their rights to citizenship, and religious freedom. However, Pakistan, formed as an Islamic Republic, dismantled all such provisions, subjecting its Hindu minority to nightmarish persecution and reducing their population to a meager single-digit percentage. In contrast, India, as a secular state, extended full constitutional support to its Muslim minority.
Nehru opposed the restoration of the Somnath temple in Gujarat, which had been looted and destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024. The temple was rebuilt shortly after India’s independence in 1951, but Nehru did not support its restoration. While many leaders in the Congress party recognized the importance of its revival, Nehru believed that direct involvement in the restoration of a Hindu temple by the government would undermine its secular credentials. Although Gandhi expressed joy for the temple’s reconstruction, Nehru remained opposed. Sardar Patel and K.M. Munshi led the efforts for the restoration, and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, despite Nehru’s disagreement, attended the consecration ceremony. During the inauguration of the reconstructed temple on May 11, 1951, Dr. Prasad stated, “The Somnath temple signifies that the power of reconstruction is always greater than the power of destruction.” He emphasized that the restoration symbolized the revival of India’s ancient culture and heritage. Meanwhile, Nehru communicated to the Chief Ministers of states that his government would not participate in the temple's restoration, ordering them to refrain from involvement.
The Congress party’s approach to Hindu culture and heritage has often been diabolically outrageous, particularly in relation to its dealing with the Hindu Astha. In 2007, during the UPA government, the Ministry of Culture and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the Ram Setu was a natural formation with no historical or religious significance. The affidavit also questioned the existence of Lord Ram, claiming there was no historical evidence to support his existence. This move sparked outrage, as it was seen as an attack on Hindu beliefs. The affidavit’s primary aim seemed to be to facilitate the Setusamudram Shipping Canal Project, which proposed dredging the Ram Setu. The Congress party’s stance on the Ram Temple movement, and later its consecration, further alienated Hindu sentiments, as the party publicly opposed the feelings of the majority. Additionally, the Congress’s treatment of the Maha Kumbh has added to the growing list of actions perceived as hostile to the majority community's beliefs.
Above all, one of the most unforgivable attempts to undermine the legacy of Hindu civilization occurred at the academic level. For decades, multiple generations of students were forced to learn a distorted version of history that the Congress deliberately imposed. This version glorified invaders like Aurangzeb, while downplaying the heroic resistance of Hindus. The sacrifices and valor of figures such as Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, and other great rulers were largely erased from the narrative. Under Congress rule, the Mughals were portrayed as reformers, while their brutalities were conveniently overlooked. During the same period, Hindu pilgrimage sites received meager funding, while the government provided significant subsidies for Hajj. The duplicity of the Congress has been evident throughout history. A recent example is the massacre of Hindus in neighboring Bangladesh, where the party leadership remained silent about the fate of the Hindu community. Similarly, the Congress chose to remain mute about the plight of Hindus in Pakistan. This pattern of illogical, anti-Hindu stances resurfaced when the Modi government introduced the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019. The CAA aimed to grant Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities—Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis—from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. The Congress vehemently opposed the move, seeking to undermine the government's efforts.
As the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This means that those who fail to learn from historical events are doomed to make the same mistakes. The Congress, as history shows, continues to pass through "shock and setback" because it has failed to learn from its past.