A story in manifestos: How Congress is shedding its 'Muslim party' tag

An analysis of Congress' election manifestos since 1937 shows how the party evolved from being a secular to a 'Muslim' party and how it is now trying to shed that tag

Speaking at a conclave organised by a leading media house in March 2018, Sonia Gandhi admitted how the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had “managed to convince people of India that Congress is a Muslim party”. Her observations have undoubtedly shaped the Congress manifesto for the 2019 general elections. The Congress now no longer talks of ‘Muslims’ – much like 2014, the word isn’t mentioned even once in its 2019 manifesto. Religious minorities have been clubbed along with linguistic minorities. Of the 11 promises made to this group – two directly pertain to protecting the rights of religious minorities. One of them is based on re-asserting the constitutional rights of religious minorities. The other specifically talks of introducing legislation to tackle “mob-engineered stripping, burning and lynching.”

2019 manifesto: The missing ‘Muslim’

The 2019 Congress manifesto in many ways is a departure from the past. A rewind on the party’s manifestos over the years throws some light on how the Congress narrative evolved from being an all-encompassing endorsement of all religious minorities to specifically addressing issues and concerns of the largest group, the Muslims. A useful start to the Congress’ journey would be its manifesto for India’s first Assembly elections held in 1937. India’s colonial masters had enacted the Government of India Act, 1935, which formed the crux of the Congress’ election pitch. While the Act paved the way for elections in India, it retained Ramsay McDonald’s infamous Communal Award of 1932. The Act retained this feature that allowed separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, forward castes and depressed castes. While some like B R Ambedkar showed support to the communal award, the Congress in its manifesto for the 1937 elections showed strong disapproval. The 1937 manifesto states: “The communal award is wholly unacceptable as being inconsistent with principles of democracy. It encourages fissiparous and disruptive tendencies and strikes at the root of Indian unity. No community profits from it in any real sense. The only party that benefits from it is the third party which rules and exploits us.”

The first manifestos: When it all started

The 1937 manifesto delves into the opportunistic tendencies of some social groups looking to get an upper hand. It states: “An attempt by one group to get some communal favour from the British government at the expense of another group results in an increase of communal tension and exploitation of both groups by the government. The whole communal problem despite its importance has nothing to do with the major problems of India – poverty and widespread unemployment. It is not a religious problem and it affects only a handful of people at the top.”

After Independence, when the first general elections were held in 1952, the Congress had little to say about minorities amid its entire focus on building India and dealing with people’s economic woes and grinding poverty. Without mentioning the world ‘Muslim’ anywhere, the party’s 1952 manifesto stated: “Every Indian has the freedom to practise and profess his religion. It is the duty of the state to protect the rights of all minority communities in the country. The Congress will make every effort to ensure proper representation for them in legislatures and public bodies.”

The 1952 election was swept by the Congress, which won 364 of the 489 seats with Jawaharlal Nehru becoming India’s first elected Prime Minister – a position he would continue on till 1964. Nehru’s vision would shape the Congress position on ‘minorities’ for two other general elections. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) – the political arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that also fought the 1952 general elections and won three seats was more vocal about its ideology than the Congress. Its manifesto stated, “secularism as currently interpreted in this country is a euphemism for the policy of Muslim appeasement. The so-called secular composite nationalism is neither secularism nor nationalism. It is a compromise with communalism of those who demand a price even for their lip-loyalty to this country. Any talk of composite culture is unrealistic, illogical and dangerous, for it weakens national unity and encourages fissiparous tendencies.”

1957 manifesto: Hindu reformation and minority protection

By 1957, when the second general elections were held, the Congress reinforced its economic vision of establishing a “socialist cooperative commonwealth” and remained unchanged in its stance on minorities. The party’s 1957 manifesto stated: “The Constitution of India is a secular one, but it respects all religions prevalent in India. Every attempt must be made to ensure that no religious or linguistic minority is made to suffer. Secularism does not mean lack of faith but protection of all faiths and the encouragement of spiritual and moral values.” In fact, the Congress projected itself less as a defender of minorities and more as a reformer of the majority community. The party’s manifesto listed amending Hindu laws as one of its achievements. It stated: “Legislation has been passed for reform of Hindu law in regard to marriage, divorce and inheritance by women. Out-of-date customs that bore down on our womenfolk have been ended and larger freedom has been ensured to women of India.”

The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, while toning down its vision of ‘Bharatvarsha’ expounded in 1952, now condemned the Congress for tinkering with Hindu customs. The party’s manifesto stated: “Joint family and indissoluble marriage have been the basis of Hindu society. Laws that alter it will lead to disintegration of society. The Jana Sangh will repeal the Hindu Marriage and Hindu Succession Acts.” The party completely dropped references to “Muslim appeasement” by the Congress as set forth in its 1952 manifesto.

1962 manifesto: Enter Communalism

By 1962, when India’s third general elections were held, ‘communalism’ entered the Congress lexicon. As the Congress narrative of a socialist India gained traction, it dropped references to minorities in its manifesto for the election. The party’s manifesto stated: “The attraction of political power led to factions and various political groupings; the general release of energy often led people in the wrong direction. Communalism, the sign of a backward society, raised its head again to oppose the march of Indian people to new goals and a new and modern social set-up. The question of national integration became of basic importance, for without it, bigotry and obscurantism might well prevent social and economic growth.”

The Congress, while portraying a vision for India as a ‘progressive socialised economy’, ended its manifesto by pledging that it stood for a ‘united, non-sectarian and secular’ India. With the death of Nehru in 1964 and the demise of Lal Bahadur Shastri 19 months later in Tashkent, the Congress entered the era of Indira Gandhi.

The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, meanwhile, continued its trajectory of debunking the Congress’ secular pitch. Its 1962 manifesto stated: “It is wrong to divide the people of Bharat into majorities and minorities on the basis of religion. It only shows a lack of conception of the true nature of Bharatiya nationalism. There shall be no room for such wrong notions and the classifications of majority and minorities based on them.”

1967 manifesto: First dedicated minority discourse

In the 1967 elections, for the first time ever, the Congress manifesto had a separate section dedicated to minorities. Also for the first time ever, the Congress borrowed the concept of ‘preservation of India’s cattle wealth’ from the Bharatiya Jan Sangh’s first manifesto. The party’s manifesto stated: “The Congress must continue to strive diligently for strengthening secular forces so that even the smallest minority in India enjoys an honoured place in the new social order. The Congress would endeavour to see that any impediment to the enjoyment of equal rights of minorities with other citizens of India is suitably dealt with.”

The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, which finished third behind the Congress and S Rajagopalachari’s Swatantra Party, considerably toned down its ‘majority-minority’ pitch of the past. For the first time ever, it promised a Uniform Civil Code in its manifesto, which would “govern the laws of marriage, adoption, inheritance, etc, of all Indian citizens.” In the first ever election fought by the Congress under Indira Gandhi’s leadership and without Nehru, it bagged 283 of the 520 seats – a drop of 78 seats.

1971 manifesto: ‘Muslim’ debuts under Indira

In the 1971 general elections, a more experienced Indira Gandhi took the Congress minority narrative to the next level. The Congress manifesto had three distinct firsts which had never been seen before in its pre-poll narrative. For the first time ever, the Congress used the word ‘Muslims’ in its manifesto while describing its agenda for religious minorities. Secondly, while talking of linguistic minorities, the Congress for the first time ever specifically mentioned Urdu as the only language that would be ‘given its due place which it has been denied so far’. Thirdly, the Congress manifesto openly derided the right wing as ‘dark and evil’. It stated: “The dark and evil forces of the Right which masquerade in a variety of forms are intent on destroying the very base of our democratic and socialist objectives. They exploit the genuine grievances of people and arouse emotions of various sections by preaching religious fanaticism, racial supremacy and chauvinism. History records that fascist forces always emerge through such nefarious manoeuvres. The Congress is determined not to let this happen in our country.”

The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, meanwhile, also had a few firsts in its manifesto. It attacked the Indira Gandhi-led government for allying in Kerala with the Muslim League, a party which the Bharatiya Jana Sangh accused of creating the “same vicious atmosphere which preceded the creation of Pakistan”. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh promised to carry forward India’s ‘secular tradition’ but introduced a new word to describe those antithetical to its idea of a secular state. Its manifesto rejected “the pseudo-secularism that combines irreligion with appeasement. We would like the followers of all religions to accept the Indian ideal of Sarvadharma Sambhava”. In 1972, when state Assembly elections were also held for the first time non-concurrently to the Parliamentary elections, the Congress stuck to its stand on ‘Minorities’, ‘Muslims’ and ‘Urdu’ in its manifesto.

1977 & 1980 manifestos: Enter and exit Sikhs, Jains and Parsis

In the 1977 general elections, the Congress tried hard to defend the imposition of emergency in 1975. Faced with growing unpopularity and the might of the Janata Party and its alliance partners, Indira Gandhi’s party lost the election. While much of the Congress’ ire was directed to political opponents instead of the Right wing, its 1977 manifesto for the first time named Sikhs, Parsis and Jains as religious minorities in addition to Muslims and Christians. Urdu continued to be listed as the only minority language that would ‘receive the special consideration that it richly deserves’. With the split of the Janata Party in 1979, India would have another tryst with Indira Gandhi.

In the run-up to the 1980 general elections, the Congress under Indira Gandhi for the first time harped on the party’s legacy as the ‘builder of new India’ under Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. This was the first ever manifesto that the Congress had drafted when being out of power. The manifesto stated its legacy as a party that “promoted national integration and combated communalism.” It accused the RSS as the “main manipulator” of over 250 communal riots that broke out under the Janata Party alliance rule. But more importantly, the Congress now dropped references to Sikhs, Parsis and Jains and reverted to Muslims and Christians in its manifesto. It made a series of special promises for Muslims – assuring the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University, non-interference in personal laws of ‘minorities’, ensuring proper management of Waqf properties and deleting derogatory references to religious leaders from text-books. For the first time, it dedicated a separate section for Urdu language. The 1980 manifesto stated: “Urdu will be recognised as a second language in some states to be used for official purposes. It will be our endeavour to protect, preserve and promote this great language by providing for teaching of Urdu at all levels.”

Manifestos in the 1990s: Of Ram and riots

The assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984 and the subsequent calling of general elections, with Congress now led by her son Rajiv Gandhi changed little about the party’s minority narrative. The manifesto reiterated all the promises made in the 1980 manifesto pertaining to minorities. But this time the usage of the words ‘Muslims’ and ‘Christians’ was toned down considerably as was witnessed during the Indira era. Rajiv Gandhi’s manifesto made two important additions. It stated: “The Congress will ensure adequate representation of minorities in government services, including law and order and security forces. A separate cell has been formed under the home ministry to look after problems of minorities. This cell will be further strengthened and charged with the responsibility of their all-round development.”

While the 1989 Congress manifesto wasn’t an outlier, things took a different turn after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in 1991. The election that saw a coalition with PV Narasimha Rao as PM emerge at power at the Centre also saw the party battling a resurgent BJP that had galvanised itself around the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The Congress in its 1991 manifesto gave separate discourses on secularism, minorities and Ram Janmabhoomi in separate sections. The manifesto invoked the Congress’ past on two counts. One of them was Nehru’s 1951 speech on communal riots, where India’s first PM said: “If any man raises a hand against another in the name of religion, I shall fight him till the last breath.” The second was a reiteration of Rajiv Gandhi’s manifesto promise of 1989 for recruiting minorities to police forces, paramilitary and the armed forces.

Given the religious tensions prevailing in India over the Ayodhya issue, the Congress manifesto promised to identify riot prone areas and prevent the prevailing sense of insecurity and fear among minorities.” Much of the Congress promises on minorities centred around violence, fear and law and order. On Ram Janmabhoomi, the Congress stand was to support “the construction of a temple without dismantling the mosque”. The BJP, meanwhile, had climbed down from the Sarvadharma Sambhava ideals of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh of yore. The BJP’s stand on Ram Janmabhoomi was antipodal to the Congress. Its 1991 manifesto stated: “For BJP, it is purely a national issue and it will not allow any vested interests to give it a sectarian and communal colour. The party is committed to building Shri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan by relocating super imposed Babri structure with due respect.”

21st century manifestos: The protector of Muslims

While the Babri Masjid was demolished while the Congress was in power and communal riots ensued across the country, the party unleashed the liberalisation of the Indian economy, which in the coming years would reshape the narrative of not just the Congress but also its principal opponents. While manifestos retained their tone and tenor in subsequent general elections, it was probably the first ever election of the 21st century when the Congress got a further boost to its minority agenda. The 2002 communal riots in Gujarat found considerable space in the Congress manifesto for the 2004 general elections which would see the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) wresting back power from the BJP.

According to the US government’s Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies, “the Congress manifesto devoted considerable space to the discussion of secularism and sectarianism. The Congress manifesto made repeated references to the vicious pogrom carried out against Muslims by Hindus in the state of Gujarat, apparently with active encouragement by the local BJP government. Additionally, the Congress tapped into widespread concerns that the BJP and its non-electoral allies on the Hindu Right were promoting a Hindu agenda by changing school history curricula, agitating for construction of a controversial temple at Ayodhya and pressing for legislation to make religious conversion difficult.”

The BJP, meanwhile, never came out with a separate manifesto in 2004. Instead, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) focused entirely on economic and national security issues while relegating the Ram Janmabhoomi issue to “other commitments.”

2009, 2014 & 2019 manifestos: The ‘Muslim’ purge and re-branding exercise

In 2009, the Congress stuck to the ‘Muslim’ promise in its manifesto yet again. It highlighted its achievements of setting up a separate ministry for minority affairs in 2004 and the constitution of the Rajinder Sachar committee to look into the socio-economic conditions of Muslims. The manifesto read: “A Wakf Development Corporation will be established to develop Wakf properties. A National Unani University will be set up. The corpus of the Maulana Azad Educational Foundation will be doubled. The implementation of the recommendations of the Sachar committee is already under way and an Equal Opportunity Commission will be established by law. Nearly 400,000 scholarships have been awarded over the past two years alone for pre-matric, post-matric and professional courses.”

In 2014, the Congress, which had already been in power for a decade, dropped the ‘Muslim’ word from its manifesto. But many of its assertions were aimed at the Muslim community with invocations of the Sachar committee — promise to bring a Communal Violence Bill, scholarships under Maulana Azad Scholarship Programme and continuing to protect Waqf properties from land sharks.

Come 2019, the Congress relegated minorities to the background while projecting its vision for the country. Rahul Gandhi, meanwhile, has been successful in projecting himself as a devout Hindu liberal through his numerous temple runs and the ensuing photo opportunities. While it is unclear if the Congress will be re-born under Rahul Gandhi, minority politics for the grand old party certainly seems to have come a full circle, if the evolution of its manifestos is anything to go by.