Our Political Desk
Hyderabad: Yesterday’s observation by the Supreme Court bench while hearing the petition over the alleged adulteration of the ‘Srivari Laddu,’ a revered offering at the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple, has stirred fresh debate.
The bench remarked that “God should be kept out of politics,” a statement that, on the surface, may seem innocuous but has far-reaching implications in India’s socio-political landscape. The remark touches upon the long-standing debate on the separation of religion from politics, a principle often overlooked in the Indian political sphere. But if this is the stance of the esteemed Lordships, one must ask—why stop at just rhetoric?
The judiciary’s reluctance to outrightly declare that religion should not play a role in political party names is puzzling, given the significance of this issue. While the Election Commission has taken steps, such as issuing notices to parties like the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), further decisive action is yet to follow. These parties, whose names openly invoke religion, continue to operate without facing significant consequences. This inaction raises critical questions: If God should indeed be kept out of politics, why are political entities allowed to brand themselves based on religious identities?
This issue is not limited to these two parties alone. The problem is far more pervasive in the Indian political system. Religion, whether through overt or covert means, has been used as a political tool by various parties for decades. Some use it through blatant appeasement tactics, while others do so subtly, embedding religious undertones into their political narratives. Either way, the misuse of religion for political gain has damaged the sanctity of both religion and politics in India. It is time to ask the hard question: Shouldn’t the state remain neutral and respect all religions equally without leaning towards any?
In this context, the ‘Srivari Laddu,’ one of the most revered ‘prasad’ for majority Hindus, plays a central role in this controversy. Allegations of adulteration with animal fat have already deeply hurt the sentiments of millions of devotees who worship Lord Venkateswara. The fact that such a sensitive issue has been dragged into the political arena underscores the extent to which religion is intertwined with politics.
Was the new government headed by the Telugu Desam Party, with allies like Jana Sena and BJP, more vocal in raising this issue? Where were the voices of these “Wokes” when a religion passed diktats like “sar tan se juda” (beheading for criticizing their God) based on references to religious texts? Would the authorities have taken a similarly dismissive approach if the faith of a different community had been at stake? The political implications of hurting the sentiments of a particular religious group, especially one with a majority following, cannot be ignored.
It is ironic that the judiciary, while commenting on keeping God out of politics, did not seize the opportunity to question the Election Commission on its failure to act more decisively in such matters. After all, the Election Commission is an autonomous constitutional body tasked with ensuring free and fair elections, and its inaction in this case weakens the very fabric of democracy. The judiciary, though it respects the autonomy of the Commission, could have at least pointed out the inconsistencies in its approach, especially when dealing with political parties that openly use religion as a tool for electoral gain.
The larger irony in Indian politics is that while the judiciary talks about keeping God out of politics, religion remains a deeply embedded part of political strategies. This hypocrisy is seen across the political spectrum, where parties claim to uphold secularism while simultaneously indulging in religious appeasement. India, a country with diverse faiths, should have political parties that cater to the development and protection of all communities, without favoring or leaning towards any particular religion.
The Srivari Laddu controversy serves as a reminder of the need for a more robust approach to the issue of religion in politics. The apex court should consider issuing clear guidelines to ensure that political parties adhere to the constitutional principles of secularism. Such guidelines would not only uphold the sanctity of religion but also ensure that political parties focus on development and governance, rather than using faith as a shortcut to power.
At this juncture, one must ask: Is it too much to demand that political parties respect the Constitution in both letter and spirit? The misuse of religion in politics, whether through party names, symbols, or electoral promises, is a violation of the fundamental tenet of secularism enshrined in our Constitution. It is time for the judiciary to not just observe, but act. The time has come for the apex court to lead the charge in cleansing politics of its religious overtones, ensuring that India truly remains a secular democracy where faith and governance are kept distinctly apart.
