Why should Congress be irked if someone flaunts Hindu credentials? Is the Congress party struggling to grow politically simply because its Hindu leaders are not keeping away from their Aastha (religious beliefs)? The latest controversy surrounding Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivkumar attending the Mahashivratri celebrations organised by the Isha Foundation in Coimbatore raises important questions about the party’s stance on secularism and its treatment of its own leaders.

D K Shivkumar has been a dedicated Congress leader, playing a crucial role in the party’s revival in Karnataka. However, his participation in a religious event, particularly one where Union Minister Amit Shah was present, has been interpreted as an act of betrayal by some Congress functionaries. This reaction begs the question: does attending a religious event make a leader less committed to the party’s political ideology? Why should Congress leaders be discouraged from openly practicing their faith?

It is worth noting that Shivkumar was invited to the event by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, a spiritual leader whose influence transcends party lines. At the event, Sadhguru spoke about national unity, the peaceful coexistence of communities, and the abrogation of Article 370, linking it to a boost in tourism in Jammu and Kashmir. He also drew a parallel between Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s efforts in unifying India and Amit Shah’s firm handling of national issues. While these statements reflect the views of Sadhguru, how does Shivkumar’s mere presence at the event equate to endorsing them?

It is also important to highlight that Shivkumar maintained a significant distance from Amit Shah throughout the event. He did not engage in any political discussions or publicly align himself with the BJP’s views. He neither shook hands with Amit Shah nor sat next to him on stage. Even inside the Dhyanalinga Hall, he consciously avoided any interaction with the Union Minister. Despite these facts, Congress leaders have chosen to make an issue out of nothing, exaggerating a non-existent controversy.

The Congress party seems to have adopted a selective approach to secularism, often criticising Hindu traditions while remaining silent on practices of other religions. There have been instances where Congress leaders have mocked events like the Mahakumbh, displayed ignorance about the Manusmriti, and made derogatory remarks about Sanatan Dharma without understanding its essence. This narrow-minded view alienates the majority community and portrays the party as being antagonistic toward Hinduism. The upcoming AICC session in Ahmedabad in April presents an opportunity for the party to clarify its stance. If Congress truly believes that D K Shivkumar committed an ideological transgression by attending the Mahashivratri celebrations, it should pass a resolution explicitly barring its Hindu leaders from participating in such events. Furthermore, if it deems events like the one at the Isha Foundation to be anti-secular, it should officially declare them as such. However, if the party fails to take such a step, it must introspect and stop imposing double standards on its leaders.

Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leaders must recognise that consistently mocking Hindu traditions, Sanatan Dharma, or events like the Mahakumbh — where 62 crore devotees took a dip at Prayagraj — does not enhance their political credibility. Instead, such an approach reinforces the perception that the Congress party is disconnected from the sentiments of the majority community. If the party continues down this path, it risks committing political harakiri, alienating voters, and diminishing its relevance in Indian politics.

The Congress must make a choice: either practise genuine secularism by respecting all faiths equally or accept the consequences of its inconsistent approach. If it wishes to revive its electoral fortunes, it must shed its selective outrage and acknowledge the diverse religious sentiments of the Indian populace. The party’s survival may well depend on its ability to strike a balance between political pragmatism and ideological clarity.