I will begin by presenting an undeniable reality: the world we inhabit is intensely politicized, and India is advancing—or perhaps more accurately, sliding—into a Post-Secular era. Academics now concede that "secularism is in crisis," and the foundations of a "post-secular age" are emerging across the globe.

Every citizen, regardless of whether they are Muslim or not, is currently interrogating the secular premise of the nation. The narrative of Indian secularism serves as a textbook instance of noble motives being subverted by flawed execution. Over the decades, there has been significant analysis regarding why secularism stumbled and who bears the responsibility. However, we must face our current reality, and frankly, perpetual debate serves little purpose. It only breeds further bitterness and deepening social divides. The priority now should be to contemplate strategies for navigating out of this complication.

There is no dishonor in admitting that India has transformed; the 1950s Nehruvian paradigm of a Western-style liberal/secular democracy no longer resonates with the "new" India of today. While the Hindu Right faces many allegations, hiding its intentions is not one of them. On the contrary, it broadcast its goals clearly. L.K. Advani, a central figure of the Sangh Parivar at the time, mockingly labeled Indian secularism as "pseudo-secularism" and urged Hindus to embrace "Hindu pride." The demolition of the Babri Masjid was not a clandestine midnight operation but occurred in full view of the public and live media. Yet, the liberal-secular instinct was to dismiss it merely as fringe vandalism or a breakdown in administration. While there was much indignation and sharp rhetoric, no profound effort was made to comprehend the underlying social forces or to realize that the traditional concept of India was collapsing; to do so would have required a painful admission of failure. Let us, therefore, dissect the situation and attempt to chart the courses ahead.

Secularism and Indian Muslims

The reality remains that secularism, as it has been applied over these seventy years, failed the Muslim community—a truth frequently overlooked. There exists a presupposition that by virtue of being a minority, Muslims are naturally the vanguard of secular thought. The actual situation is quite different. Muslims possess no innate devotion to the concept of secularism itself, viewing it primarily as a legal safeguard against religious bigotry. During the 1947 Partition, when the community faced the choice of a new homeland defined by faith, many stayed back due to financial constraints or a lack of the technical expertise required to restart in a foreign territory. Various factors influenced their stay in India; while the oath of parity was vital, secularism was not the primary driver. However, now that the facade of secularism is eroding and the majoritarian collective seeks to establish their Post-Secular vision: The Hindu Rashtra, we cannot afford to look away. The signs are undeniable, and to disregard them is to ignore the obvious. Centrist groups, including the Congress, have already pivoted, softening their secular talk to instead highlight their Hindu identity. Rahul Gandhi, the descendant of the Nehru–Gandhi line, showcased his sacred thread and declared his lineage during the 2019 campaign to attract the Hindu electorate. ‘Rahul exhibits his “janeu”, frames a trip to Kailash Mansarovar as his ultimate “Shiv bhakti”, visits shrines across the land during polls, wears a “tilak” and informs priests he is a Dattatreya Kaul Brahmin. The Congress is fighting to inherit the Hindu mantle,’ observed Naghma Sahar before the 2019 vote. Addressing the House after the victory, Modi claimed that no party dared to even utter ‘secularism’ during the race; he was correct. During historical riots (1984, 1992, 2002), we witnessed law enforcement side with the majority or allow agitators total freedom (Hashimpura, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarnagar, Delhi 2020, etc.) A policeman acting as a believer rather than a neutral guardian during strife exposes the fragility of Indian secularism. There is a massive record of the distortion and failed application of this ideal. No greater proof of failure exists than the fact that the very groups it aimed to shield are now calling for its removal. This is not just a post-2014 phenomenon; our history clearly illuminates these deep-seated cracks.

The Good Old Congress Day??

A question often raised in these debates is: where did it go wrong? How did we reach this point? Such a query implies that there was once a perfect era; that different faiths lived in total concord and secularism thrived. But is that the truth? The suppression of the Urdu tongue; the branding of Muslims as a fifth column; the systemic bias in employment; the refusal of housing by Hindu owners; and the depiction of Muslim clusters as ‘mini-Pakistans’—all this happened long before the Babri demolition or the 2002 massacre. Honestly, it has been a grueling journey for Muslims in secular India. There was never a ‘golden age’ of communal relations, as much of independent India’s history is defined by mutual distrust and prejudice. On the 24th of January 1948, Nehru visited AMU amid demands for its closure as a centre of separatism. Fear was everywhere. His visit sought to reassure those who stayed that the state would treat them as equals, urging them to commit to a secular path. Ignoring past loyalties, he said, ‘Do not view yourselves as outsiders, for you are the flesh and blood of this land.’ However, the boundaries of this secularism soon surfaced with the Somnath Temple’s rebuilding, backed by state officials. Nehru’s discomfort with President Prasad leading the ceremony reflected the constitutional spirit, yet Prasad’s decision to proceed showed the limitations of the model. During Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, thousands at Turkman Gate were made destitute and displaced from ancestral lands to remote areas lacking basic needs. Their homes were flattened for ‘beautification.’ Resistance met police fire and death, with the press silenced. Official tolls are missing, but accounts call it a ‘massacre.’ Simultaneously, thousands of young Muslims faced forced sterilization to control their birth rate. Leaders were jailed for opposing Congress. These acts were overseen by Sanjay Gandhi. Even Rajiv Gandhi, in 1986, opened the Babri Masjid locks for Hindu worship, reigniting a frozen conflict and enabling the VHP’s movement. A look at five decades of Congress dominance reveals that the ‘golden age’ is a myth. Far from helping minorities, it institutionalized bias against the very people it allegedly favored.

Nationalism to Hindutva

In Europe, youth learn early of the terrors of nationalism and the rise of Hitler. They are taught to be suspicious of hyper-nationalism fueled by race or religion. In contrast, Indian and Pakistani youth learn only of national pride and local heroes. M.S. Golwalkar, in his 1939 work, controversially argued that only Hindus were truly Indian. He claimed non-Hindus were citizens only if they discarded their faith for Hindu customs; otherwise, they were second-class. Savarkar, the ideological father of the movement, included Sikhs and Buddhists in his ‘parivar’ but excluded Muslims. In "Hindu Rashtra Darshan" (1949), he praised Nazism as Germany's savior, drawing parallels between German Jews and Indian Muslims. To scholar Jyotirmaya Sharma, Savarkar’s drive for a Hindu Rashtra outweighed political freedom. It is ironic that his heirs now claim the title of ‘nationalists.’ It is a revision of history. Once, both groups were called communal, but now Hindus have cleared themselves of blame, painting only Muslims as the community that acts only for self-interest. Hindus now represent the nation itself. As nationalism merges with Hindutva, it creates ‘enemies’—branding Muslims as traitors or leftists as ‘pseudo-secular’ urban Naxals.

Ganga Jamuni Tehzeeb and New India

The Ganga–Jamuni culture thrived when the ruling class narrative was ‘Islamicate’—influenced by Islam but pluralistic. This openness allowed it to absorb various Indian traditions. I challenge the view that this culture relied on the inherent openness of Hindu tradition. Rather, the grammar of this synthesis remained Islamicate, managing contradictory strands. This influence was so deep that Islamicate customs continued even under Hindu rulers. It was Muslims who were historically the inclusive ones. In 2019, JMI students used religious chants which the BJP used to vilify the movement. Liberal Hindus reacted by demanding the protests stay ‘secular’ to keep majority support. This forced a clumsy shift where organizers performed hawans and recited the Quran together to prove their credentials. This pressure on Muslims to prove loyalty is a tired story; any sign of ‘Muslimness’ is seen as betrayal. In 2020, the ‘corona jihad’ lie spread without proof. Policies like the end of Article 370 and ‘love jihad’ laws are tools to marginalize Muslim men. Attacking the loyalty of figures like Aamir Khan proves how quickly this majoritarianism is moving.

Hindu Rashtra: The only way ahead?

The majority is constantly trying to actualize their dream of Hindu Rashtra but how would that be? Is it the Utopian dream or an actual planned project? Beyond the far-Right Hindutva bubble, will the mainstream Sangh Parivar leadership have the appetite for such a controversial move, given the potential reputational damage it is likely to do to India’s image as South Asia’s sole pillar of secular democracy in a region engulfed by religious and cultural strife? Truth be told, both communities are constrained by objective factors and are not really in a position to have it all their way: neither an all-singing-all-dancing secular utopia sought by Muslims, nor an in-your-face Hindu Rashtra sought by Hindu nationalists. RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, has said that a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ does not mean it has no place for Muslims as this concept is inclusive of all faiths and religions. He insists that the RSS is ‘not anti-minorities and doesn’t propose to change the framework of the Constitution’, as alleged by the Opposition. 

Some Muslim scholars like Hasan Suroor and Faizan Mustafa argue that a state can have an officially recognized religion—in India’s case, it will be Hinduism—and yet remain secular in practice by treating all citizens as equal and making sure that their religious and civil rights are protected by law, as in many western liberal democracies, including Britain where the state is Christian, but government practices are secular. Hasan Suroor in his book, "Unmasking Indian Secularism", put his ideas very academically, though the idea is very controversial and I totally reject that. Another notable scholar, Mahmood Madni, the President of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind religious organisation, said in one of his BBC interviews in 2023 that he is open to the discussions on the idea of Hindu Rashtra if the blueprint of the Hindu State is explained transparently in detail while also promising to safeguard the social and religious interests of the Muslim minority. But another scholar of the same organisation, Maulana Arshad Madni has a different view on this matter. The very problem with this plan is that Muslims must sacrifice the most and they'll have to lose their Muslimness eventually. Hasan Suroor in his book writes, 

"Therefore, any serious search for a solution will require a willingness on both sides to come together without preconditions and be ready to make compromises. It needs to be reiterated that Muslims should be prepared to forego more because—as I have argued before—they have more at stake, nothing short of their children and grandchildren’s future in India. They have nowhere else to go; indeed, they don’t want to go anywhere and wish to continue to live in India as they have for centuries." But I disagree with accepting the humiliation and disgrace. A Modern State will never have uniform citizens as it must create some non-uniform classes, it must have a Boogeyman of its own. 

Muslims must not opt for this plan whatsoever.

Another Way Out

The Hindu Rashtra, whether Theocratic or Secular in its working, if actualized, it will surely deprive the Muslim masses of their Muslimness. As per the ideas of Golwalkar and Sarvarkar, only Hindus are to be treated as Indians, so eventually in order to fit in the 'Indian' State, the Muslims have to leave their Muslimness. Every Modern State has a Boogeyman of its own, for the USA, it was the communists back then. In India, Indian Muslims are the Boogeyman. The Modern State acts as a God having its own metaphysics, angels and devils. It needs uniformity among its citizens but complete uniformity is a danger in itself so the State creates a Boogeyman to balance the equation, the Satan. Muslims in India will have to bear the consequences even if the secular Hindu Rashtra comes into effect. What is the way out? To me it's creating autonomous Muslim institutions and you wonder how that's going to work? Read the next article.