Former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung has done what many public figures today hesitate to do—speak a simple truth that should not be controversial in a civilized society. His suggestion that if Friday prayers or any religious practice causes inconvenience to the public, suitable adjustments, including staggering prayer timings, should be considered, is not an attack on any faith. It is a call for mutual respect, civic responsibility and harmonious coexistence.
Unfortunately, in today’s hyper-polarized environment, even the most reasonable observations are viewed through the prism of religious identity. Yet Jung’s remarks deserve serious attention because they go to the heart of what India—or Bharat, as many prefer to call this ancient civilization-state—has always stood for: accommodation without appeasement and faith without fanaticism.
For centuries, practitioners of Sanatan Dharma have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to coexist with diverse religions, cultures and traditions. This spirit of tolerance is deeply embedded in Bharat’s civilizational ethos. However, tolerance must never be mistaken for weakness. Respect can survive only when it is reciprocated. Coexistence cannot be a one-way street where one section is expected to accommodate endlessly while others refuse even the smallest adjustments in the larger public interest.
Jung’s appeal is therefore not merely directed at one community. It is a message to all forms of religious fundamentalism, irrespective of faith. Whether it manifests in the name of religion, caste, sect or ideology, extremism has no place in a modern democracy aspiring to become a global leader.
This debate also revives the long-pending question of a Uniform Civil Code. Successive Supreme Court observations have repeatedly highlighted the need for a common legal framework governing all citizens. The principle is straightforward: equal rights must be accompanied by equal responsibilities. A nation cannot indefinitely function under multiple personal laws while simultaneously claiming to uphold complete equality before the law.
Had India’s political leadership after Independence focused on genuine equality rather than selective vote-bank calculations, many of today’s social and communal tensions might have been avoided. Instead, successive governments often chose appeasement over empowerment. Electoral arithmetic frequently took precedence over national integration.
The consequences of such politics are visible even today. Communities have been encouraged to view themselves as competing interest groups rather than equal stakeholders in a shared national project. Political parties that thrived on identity-based mobilization have little incentive to promote genuine unity because division remains their most reliable electoral strategy.
It is in this context that Jung’s intervention becomes particularly significant. He has reminded the nation that citizenship must come before communal identity. Rights are indispensable in a democracy, but so are responsibilities. Public spaces belong equally to every citizen, regardless of religion. Any activity—religious, political or social—that causes inconvenience to others should be conducted with sensitivity and consideration.
Equally important is the fact that Bharat’s minorities enjoy freedoms and constitutional protections that are the envy of many societies around the world. This is not a claim of superiority but a statement of fact. Bharat remains one of the few nations where diverse faiths not only survive but flourish under the protection of a democratic framework. That achievement should be celebrated rather than constantly undermined through narratives of perpetual victimhood.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governance model, welfare schemes have increasingly been presented as citizen-centric rather than community-centric. From housing and sanitation to financial inclusion and healthcare, benefits have been extended without formally distinguishing between religious identities. The emphasis has been on development for all rather than patronage for a select few.
This makes Jung’s message even more relevant today. Religious leaders and political actors who continue to exploit faith for narrow electoral gains would do well to reflect upon it. Dividing society on religious lines may yield short-term political dividends, but it weakens national cohesion and undermines Bharat’s larger aspirations.
As Bharat marches towards becoming a major economic, technological, and strategic power, it must shed the baggage of identity politics and embrace a more confident national identity. The guiding principle should be simple: we are Bharateeyas first. Our religious beliefs may differ, our customs may vary, but our destiny is shared.
Najeeb Jung’s words should therefore be viewed not as a controversy but as a constructive reminder. The future belongs neither to appeasement nor to confrontation. It belongs to mutual respect, equal citizenship, and national unity.
The slogan for a rising Bharat should be clear and uncompromising: Hum Sab Bharatiya Hain. And in that spirit, every citizen should feel proud to say, without hesitation and without division, Vande Mataram.
