DNA Edit: Can SC ruling alter communal politics?
Nevertheless, the influence of religion in social life meant that politicians often lapsed into the use of religious idioms in their election speeches.
By ruling that an appeal to a voter’s religion and caste constituted an electoral malpractice, the Supreme Court has drawn the ‘lakshman rekha’ for political parties. Pardon the use of a phrase with religious undertones. From the days of the Raj, the communalisation of politics has been a cause of concern for India’s political elite. Independent India’s secular constitution sought to curb the influence of religion on the State and polity. A clause was also introduced in Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, defining an “appeal by a candidate or his agent...to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols” as a corrupt practice.
Nevertheless, the influence of religion in social life meant that politicians often lapsed into the use of religious idioms in their election speeches. The 1980s was a fraught period. The Khalistan movement, Rajiv Gandhi’s capitulation to conservative Muslim clerics in the Shah Bano case, and the opening of the locks of the Babri Masjid, produced far-reaching changes in India’s electoral politics. Since then words like minority appeasement, communal polarisation and majoritarianism are very much part of the political lexicon and accusations relating to such acts are now routine. Amid this churning, identity politics, with the purported aim of seeking to represent backward castes and minorities, gained significant electoral clout. Parties like the BSP, SP and the RJD are just some of the skilled practitioners of identity politics.
All political parties in India field candidates taking into consideration the communal make-up of constituencies. Many such implicit communal practices are in vogue, including the reliance on places of worship to send not-so-subtle messages on which candidate to vote for. The SC judgment can at best curb the use of explicit language in election speeches and campaign material. At least, such communication is out in the open and hence exposes those who make communal statements. It can be argued that the discreet appeals to communal sentiments are more dangerous. In that sense, the judgment will only have limited impact on the conduct of elections. It is notable that three judges on the bench disagreed with the majority verdict. They took note that religion and caste have always been valid institutional tools for social mobilisation. The judgment will also leave the EC with a tricky question: do the registrations of political parties like the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League stand invalidated now?