Dr. Buragadda Srinadh
Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), is often perceived as the last foreign ruler of India—a characterization that reflects concerns over her leadership style and political strategies. Her approach is seen by critics as mirroring historical invaders like the Mughals and the British, particularly in fostering divisions within Indian society along religious lines. This perspective suggests that her governance was not solely about administration but involved a deliberate effort to consolidate power by appealing to specific religious communities, particularly Muslims and Christians, at the expense of Hindu sentiments.
One of the most controversial aspects of her tenure has been the rhetoric surrounding Hinduism. For instance, former Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, under her leadership, introduced the term “Hindu terrorism,” a phrase widely criticized for unfairly stigmatizing the majority population to appease minorities. Similarly, another former Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, made controversial remarks equating the Bhagavad Gita with jihad, offending many Hindus. Sonia Gandhi allegedly encouraged party leaders to engage in Hindu bashing, implying that such actions were a route to securing key ministries. Consequently, Congress leaders readily adopted an anti-Hindu stance for political gains.
The current Congress President, Mallikarjun Kharge, further alienated Hindus by mocking the Kumbh Mela, one of Hinduism’s most significant religious gatherings. Under UPA rule, numerous parliamentary bills and policies were crafted to appease minorities, often at the cost of Hindu interests. Notably, Pranab Mukherjee was denied the Prime Ministership twice, allegedly because he was Hindu. The UPA government consistently allocated significant portfolios to non-Hindus, and key decisions were made by individuals outside the Hindu fold. Furthermore, former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao faced humiliation both during his lifetime and posthumously at the behest of Sonia Gandhi.
A particularly contentious move by the UPA government was its attempt to dismantle the Ram Setu, a structure of immense religious significance to Hindus. The administration even filed a petition in the Supreme Court against its preservation, reinforcing perceptions of an anti-Hindu agenda. These actions, according to critics, were part of a broader strategy by Sonia Gandhi to solidify her political base among minorities by adopting an anti-Hindu stance.
The historical parallels drawn between Sonia Gandhi’s strategies and those of past invaders highlight a pattern of undermining Hindu identity to consolidate power. The Mughals, for instance, engaged in forced conversions and temple destructions to assert dominance, while British colonial rule exploited India’s resources and facilitated Christian missionary activities under the guise of benevolence. Similarly, Sonia Gandhi’s tenure is often seen as an extension of these tactics, aimed at weakening the Hindu majority to strengthen minority vote banks.
However, unlike previous invaders, Sonia and her son, Rahul Gandhi, appear to have miscalculated the political landscape. Rahul Gandhi’s anti-Hindu stance became evident when he mocked Lord Shiva in Parliament—an unprecedented move that fueled backlash. Their rhetoric and policies have alienated a significant portion of the Hindu electorate, triggering a resurgence of Hindu nationalist sentiment across India. This misalignment with the cultural and religious sentiments of the majority has led to a decline in Congress’s political fortunes and diminished Sonia Gandhi’s influence.
Ultimately, the strategy of division that once bolstered political dominance now appears counterproductive. The backlash against Congress’s perceived anti-Hindu policies suggests that the Indian electorate is increasingly rejecting leadership that undermines the country’s cultural and religious heritage. As history has shown, attempts to weaken a civilization’s core identity often lead to resistance, and in this case, a reassertion of Hindu values in the national discourse.
