How does a party that solemnly swears allegiance to Gandhian socialism, positive secularism, and value-based politics in its founding document also describe those very values, when politically convenient, as alien, unnecessary, and dangerous? How does a sitting vice president, rising from that party’s ranks, call secularism a nasoor, a festering wound, while still holding office under a Constitution that enshrines those very principles? How does a movement that claimed for decades to defend democracy now seek to erase the words that symbolise it?
And more crucially, how do these same people accuse Indian Muslims of practising Taqiyya, strategic concealment of belief, when their own political playbook is drenched in that very performance?
Tactically Embraced, Now Eager to Erase
From the day it was founded in 1980, the BJP’s constitution foregrounded its Pancha Nishthas, five guiding principles that included Gandhian socialism and positive secularism. These were not added later, not mandated by external pressure, but declared openly from inception.
They needed those labels back then. Gandhian, secular, socialist. Respectability was essential in a post-Emergency, Congress-dominated terrain. Even Integral Humanism, their economic philosophy, was cloaked in Gandhian phrasing. For forty years, they marched under that banner.
Once in power, however, the masks slipped.
Voices Calling for the Cut
Here are some leading members of the ruling party calling to remove ’socialist’ and ‘secular’ from our Preamble, in contradiction to their own constitution:
- Anantkumar Hegde (Former Union Minister & MP, Karnataka): Openly declared his desire to amend the Constitution to remove the word secular altogether. (2017)
- Jagdeep Dhankhar (Vice President of India): Described secularism, socialism, and integrity as a nasoor and an affront to Sanatan spirit. (2025)
- Rakesh Sinha (Rajya Sabha MP, BJP): Introduced a private member’s resolution in Parliament seeking the removal of socialism from the Constitution. (2020)
- Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Agriculture Minister, Former MP CM): Called for a serious debate on whether socialism and secularism reflect India’s core cultural values. (2025)
- Himanta Biswa Sarma (Chief Minister of Assam): Called it a “golden time” to remove the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble, arguing they are alien to Indian civilisation. (2025)
- K. S. Eshwarappa (Former Deputy CM, Karnataka): Questioned the legitimacy of inserting ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ during the Emergency and demanded restoration of the original Preamble. (2025)
- Yogi Adityanath (Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh): Labelled the Emergency-era additions a blow to India’s soul and called for national introspection. (2025)
- Dattatreya Hosabale (General Secretary, RSS): Demanded the removal of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble and called the 42nd Amendment a betrayal. (2025)
And here are some more generally talking trash about the Constitution, about Gandhi and Gandhiism, and making anti-national statements:
- M. S. Golwalkar (RSS Sarsanghchalak): Criticised the Indian Constitution for rejecting the Manusmriti. (1949–50)
- Rajendra Singh (RSS ideologue): Initially praised Godse’s commitment, later retraced; nonetheless, in 2024 reasserted that India’s Constitution does not reflect its “unique cultural oneness.” (1988 & early 2024)
- Pramod Muthalik (Bajrang Dal/VHP leader, Karnataka): Repeatedly praised Godse, led calls for economic boycott of Muslims, urged display of swords in homes, promoted vigilante and misogynist rhetoric. (2000–2023)
- Sakshi Maharaj (BJP MP, Uttar Pradesh): Declared Nathuram Godse “a patriot.” (2014)
- Nalin Kateel (BJP MP, Karnataka): Made veiled pro-Godse and anti-Gandhi remarks in campaign speeches. (2019)
- Pragya Singh Thakur (BJP MP, Madhya Pradesh): Called Nathuram Godse a patriot. (2019, 2021)
- Anantkumar Hegde (BJP MP, Karnataka): Referred to Gandhi’s freedom struggle as “a staged drama,” questioned his title of Mahatma, and ridiculed the use of hunger strikes. (2020)
- Abhijit Gangopadhyay (BJP leader, ex‑judge): Declared he “cannot choose between Gandhi and Godse.” (2024)
The message is loud. The BJP and its ideological engine, the RSS, no longer feel the need to wear the mask. They have power, and they are now saying what they always meant. The only problem is that they once said something entirely different.
A Mirror of Hypocrisy
So let us ask again. If the BJP truly believed these were alien intrusions, why did they choose them from the very beginning? Why did they codify them into their own ideology?
That is political Taqiyya. Saying one thing in public while harbouring the opposite belief. Declaring Gandhian and constitutional values when it suited them, then calling them poisonous once they held unchallenged power.
Their accusation against Indian Muslims of concealment suddenly seems laughable, except that it is weaponised routinely. The real concealment has come from the top. The strategic performance has come from the centre of authority.
Demographics, Power, and the Real Stakes
Whether or not Indian Muslims are secretly waiting to impose Sharia law at some imagined 30% threshold is immaterial. Statistically, they are nowhere near it. Their fertility rate has fallen. Their social mobility is stunted. Their representation is marginal. Their spaces are policed. Their names are liabilities. Their mosques are watched. Their loyalties are questioned.
So even if the accusation were true, and it is not, it would still be irrelevant. What matters is not what the powerless might fantasise about, but what the powerful are actively doing.
And the real Taqiyya, if we must use that word, is not coming from the ghettos. It is coming from the corridors of power.
This is not just rhetoric. It is policy. It is pedagogy. It is the rewriting of textbooks, the reinterpretation of law, and the reshaping of national memory. It is the politics of erasure, disguised as cultural resurgence.
Diaspora Echoes
Note: The original post has been deleted or blocked.
The same masquerade plays out abroad. The NRI who identifies as progressive in Boston is the same man who defends bulldozer justice in Uttar Pradesh. He quotes Audre Lorde in English and forwards Golwalkar in Marathi. He flourishes under liberalism but finances fascism. Protected by the secularism of his host country, he sends money and votes to support majoritarian rule in his homeland.
He, too, conceals. He, too, performs. He, too, like in the Hindi idiom, has elephant’s teeth: one set for show, and another for use. He, too, speaks two languages, one for the world and one for WhatsApp.
The Ugly Truth
So tell me again. Who is practising Taqiyya?
Is it the besieged Muslim, whose influence is shrinking and voice fading? Or is it the confident majoritarian, who once swore by Gandhian socialism and now tramples on it with legislative boots?
Because the real deception is not hidden in back alleys. It is shouted from the podium, wrapped in saffron drapes, and endorsed by the institutions of power. That is not survival. That is strategy.
And perhaps the real danger is not in what the minority hides to survive, like a man shielding a flame from the wind, but in what the majority hides for advantage, like a knife kept behind the back until the moment is right.
