
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh: A Legacy Of 70 Years, A Future Of Hope
Dattopant Thengadiji, the founder of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), often remarked that BMS was a 'Sangh Srushti" – a creation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). He founded the organisation under the able guidance of Guruji Golwalkar, the second Sarsanghchalak of the RSS.
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh was the last of the major central trade union organisations to be formed, after AITUC, INTUC, HMS, and others. Yet, within just 34 years, it rose to become the largest Central Trade Union in the country. Throughout its journey, the BMS championed issues often ignored by other unions.
India has a rich tradition of a powerful trade union movement. Much of the progress and rights enjoyed by workers today are the result of tireless struggles led by towering figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr BR Ambedkar, and Dattopant Thengadiji, who were also eminent leaders of the trade union movement.
The BMS has been at the forefront in ensuring decent wages and working conditions for the workers. But it always thought beyond bread and butter. It has been distinguished by its deeply nationalist character. Its rallying call in the labour sector was 'Nationalise the Labour'. It firmly rejected both 'political unionism" and mere 'bread and butter trade unionism". In negotiations, the BMS advocated not just for the workers but considered society at large as a third and most critical stakeholder in all industrial matters, apart from workers and employers. While striving for better wages and improved working conditions, the BMS consistently emphasised that workers' efforts must contribute meaningfully to nation-building. This balancing vision was captured in its inspiring slogan: 'Desh ke hit mein karenge kaam, kaam ke lenge poore daam' ('We shall work in the nation's interest, and receive full wages for our work').
In times of national crisis, the BMS consistently called upon Indian labour to rise in service of the nation. During the Chinese aggression in 1962, the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, and the liberation of Bangladesh, the BMS mobilised like-minded trade unions to form the Rashtriya Mazdoor Morcha to support the government's war efforts. It also suspended all protests and demands during these periods.
True to its cultural roots, the BMS has promoted a trade union movement grounded in the Bharatiya ethos. It celebrates Vishwakarma Jayanti on September 17 as National Labour Day—an alternative to May Day. May Day is observed in remembrance of a failed struggle that ultimately weakened the trade union movement in the United States, where the events associated with May Day originally took place. In India, Vishwakarma symbolises the dignity and noble status of labour in society. Today, several states officially observe a holiday on this day.
Landmark contributions in the service of labour
The BMS has been at the forefront of many groundbreaking labour reforms. Wages constitute the most critical element in fulfilling the economic aspirations of the labour. The BMS was the first to critically study and expose flaws in the calculation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the basis for determining Dearness Allowance. Despite initial opposition from other unions like INTUC and HMS, who later came to endorse it, the movement gained momentum, culminating in a successful Mumbai Bandh on 20th August 1963. The government eventually appointed the Lakdawala Committee to revise CPI methodology.
The BMS championed the principle that the bonus is a deferred wage, advocating the slogan 'Bonus for All" – a position later adopted by all major stakeholders in the labour sector. The First National Commission on Labour, chaired by Justice Gajendragadkar, was established in 1967. The BMS made an exhaustive submission before the Commission outlining a comprehensive set of demands for the welfare of labour.
In 1971, the BMS took up the issue of domestic workers, recognising that they lacked both legal protection and formal recognition within the labour framework. The BMS established the Gharelu Kamgar Sangh in Mumbai. A massive rally of around 60,000 domestic workers took place during BMS's third national conference on 22-23 May 1972.
In 1974, the Bharatiya Railway Mazdoor Sangh played a pivotal role in the national railway strike along with other unions. While some other unions contemplated damaging national property during the strike, the BMS firmly insisted that the strike be carried out without harming any national assets. The struggle continued without causing any loss of national property.
A voice of resistance in times of oppression
On July 26, 1976, Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency. In response, the Lok Sangarsh Samiti was formed, and a joint circular was issued by BMS, CITU, HMS, and HMKP. While leaders of other central trade unions were later afraid and reluctant to continue the agitation against the autocratic rule, the BMS took to the streets, resulting in the arrest of more than 5,000 of its activists, with around 111 imprisoned under the oppressive MISA law. The courageous resistance and the sacrifices made by the BMS during the Emergency won the confidence of workers across the country. It led to a period of growth for the organisation after the Emergency was lifted in 1977. Representing the BMS for the first time, Thengadiji attended the 63rd session of the International Labour Conference of the ILO in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1977 as part of the Indian delegation. By 1980, the BMS was declared the second-largest Central Trade Union in the country by the Congress Government, next to INTUC. Following this, the BMS was officially included in every Indian trade union delegation to international conferences and forums such as the ILO. Finally, based on the 1989 verification conducted by the then Congress government, the BMS was declared the largest central trade union in the country by the same Government. Consequently, in the 1990s, the BMS was entrusted with the responsibility of leading Indian delegations to the ILO and other international forums.
By 1980, the Government officially recognised the BMS as the second-largest central trade union, after INTUC. Following the 1989 verification conducted by the Congress government, the BMS was declared the largest central trade union in the country. From the 1990s onwards, the BMS began leading Indian delegations to global labour fora, including the ILO.
In 1980, leaders from various trade unions were invited to participate in the Viswakarma Jayanti celebrations, which BMS observed as Labour Day. On June 4, 1981, a National Campaign Committee comprising eight Central Trade Unions and National Industrial Federations, including the BMS, was formed to counter the government's flawed anti-labour policies. In 1986, 10 central trade unions once again united to form a common platform to address broader issues such as national unity, disarmament, and racial discrimination. The BMS welcomed this initiative and played a leading role in these activities with the vision of advancing world peace and harmony.
During its seventh national conference in 1984, held in Hyderabad, BMS declared a 'War of Economic Independence Against Imperialism.'
Technology, yes, but not at the cost of jobs
The BMS firmly believes that technology and machines should assist, not replace, human workers. Given India's status as a labour-surplus country, the BMS asserts that technologies should be 'adapted' to suit Indian conditions rather than 'adopted' in their original form, as uncritical adoption may adversely impact employment. In line with this, the 1981 Hyderabad conference resolved to observe 1984 as 'Anti-Computerisation Year' in protest against labour-displacing devices. However, the BMS did not object to the use of computers in complex domains such as research, defence, meteorology, oceanography and the like.
It also demanded a Round Table Conference involving all stakeholders to deliberate on the job-displacing impacts of computerisation, particularly in sectors like banking. Four decades later, the world is once again engaged in the same debate, raising similar concerns and arguments in response to the growing spread of artificial intelligence and robotics.
The BMS has adopted a distinctive policy of 'responsive co-operation" toward successive governments, regardless of political affiliation.
Replacing class conflict with harmony
On the international front, the BMS replaced the class-divisive Communist slogan 'Workers of the World, Unite!' with its message of harmony: 'Workers, Unite the World!' The BMS has maintained positive relationships with global trade union movements. Notably, the BMS was invited as a special guest to the pro-Communist Conference of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in Moscow in November 1991. At this conference, Prabhakar Ghate presented before the World, the BMS's apolitical ideals for a genuine trade union movement.
When the ILO proposed incorporating a social clause in trade agreements with developing countries, the BMS strongly opposed the move. The social clause, which aimed to prohibit imports from countries allegedly using child labour, would have jeopardised export prospects for nations like India and Nepal. The then BMS representative, R Venugopal, mobilised many developing nations against it.
To empower women workers, the BMS established its women's wing during the 1981 conference in Kolkata. In April 1994, the Sarvapanth Samadar Manch was founded to foster religious harmony in India's diverse cultural landscape. In 1995, the 'Paryavaran Manch' was launched to address rising environmental concerns, such as the rising levels of industrial pollution and their adverse effects. The initiative championed the Bharatiya ethos that 'Mother Nature should be milked, not exploited'.
To safeguard the nation's economic interests in global forums, the BMS organised a massive rally on April 16, 2001 at Ram Lila Grounds in New Delhi, attended by lakhs of workers. The rally highlighted the potential dangers of blindly following WTO policies, with the slogan: 'WTO Modo, Todo, Ya Chodo (Change WTO, Break It, or Quit It)'.
The BMS regards labour as the true capital and promotes the concept of 'Labourisation of Industry'. This approach was successfully piloted in Calcutta Jute Mills and other industries for a considerable period. Labourisation encompasses three components: a share in capital investment, participation in management, and proportional profit sharing. The BMS asserted that labour participation should go beyond tokenism on boards of directors; workers should be prioritised in the allotment of company shares and in the distribution of profits.
The Vajpeyi Government constituted the Second National Commission on Labour under the chairmanship of Ravindra Verma. While leftist trade unions boycotted the commission, the BMS submitted a comprehensive memorandum addressing labour's varied needs in June 2001. When the commission made anti-worker recommendations on eight key issues, Saji Narayanan CK, a member of the Commission and representative of the BMS, submitted a dissenting note that drew widespread attention in labour circles. One media outlet wrote, the dissenting note of BMS would be remembered more than the Commission's report itself.
A leader in modern labour movements
On November 23, 2011, the BMS held a historic rally in Delhi, attended by nearly 2 lakh workers, which was an unprecedented show of strength in recent decades. In that event, BMS declared the beginning of a sustained agitation. The show of strength inspired other trade unions, and on the very next day, their leaders came to the BMS office to plan joint actions, accepting the leadership of BMS. Two nationwide strikes followed on 28th March 2012 and 20-21 February 2013, by all the central Trade Unions together under BMS leadership. These actions had a significant impact, drawing serious attention from the government, employers, media and all those related to labour. For the first time, then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh directly intervened at the eleventh hour and appointed a group of four ministers to engage with trade unions and address their demands. During the Indian Labour Conference held in Delhi on May 17, 2013, the Prime Minister openly recognised the demands of trade unions, rekindling hope and enthusiasm among workers across the country.
The 46th Indian Labour Conference, held on July 20-21, 2015 after a gap of more than two years, marked a turning point amid turbulent labour conditions. During the conference, in a committee on 'Labour Law Reforms' chaired by the BMS representative, all three social partners — employers' organisations, the 11 central trade unions, and government representatives from both the Centre and the States — unanimously agreed upon three foundational pillars for all future labour legislations: (i) the rights and welfare of workers; (ii) the sustainability of enterprises and job creation; and (iii) industrial peace.
When the four Labour Codes were in the drafting stage, a team of BMS activists actively participated in the Government's consultation process, while other Central Trade Unions belonging to opposition parties chose to boycott it. As a result of BMS's proactive engagement, several major pro-labour reforms, particularly steps toward the universalisation of labour benefits, were successfully incorporated into the Codes. However, certain clauses still contain provisions that remain a cause of serious concern. Thus, the Code on Wages and the Code on Social Security are considered historic and revolutionary in many respects. Nevertheless, BMS remains committed to its ongoing struggle to amend the anti-worker provisions in the remaining two Codes.
Under the leadership of BMS, the Central Trade Unions raised a 12-point joint Charter of Demands (as revised on June 24, 2014) before the Government and declared a national strike on September 2, 2015. In response, the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, constituted a Group of Five Ministers, led by Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitley, to engage in wide-ranging consultations with all 11 Central Trade Unions regarding the demands. These consultations were held on August 26 and 27, 2015. After extensive discussions, the Government took a historic step by either fully or partially accepting nearly 10 out of the 12 demands. Emphasising the critical role of trade unions, the Finance Minister assured all Central Trade Unions that any labour law reforms would be undertaken only after thorough tripartite consultations. In light of the Government's proactive efforts to address the Charter of Demands, BMS decided to postpone the strike. However, the central trade unions affiliated with opposition political parties chose to proceed with the strike, despite the majority of demands having been accepted. The strike, without the participation of the BMS, failed to make any significant impact. This development marked a clear separation between 'labour welfare" and 'labour politics." Since then, opposition trade unions have continued to organise frequent politically motivated strikes ceremoniously, without BMS involvement and without making any meaningful impact on the labour landscape.
During 2015-2016, the International Labour Organization (ILO) undertook a historic initiative to 'formalise the informal sector", conducting two years of global discussions on the matter. BMS delegate Shri Saji Narayanan C.K. was selected to represent the Asia-Pacific region in the ILO Workers' Group Steering Team for the two year period. He was invited to attend the key preparatory meeting of the workers' team held in Copenhagen, organised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), ahead of the ILO Conference.
In 2020–21, while the world was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic, BMS carried out one of the largest service initiatives in the history of the trade union movement. District-level helplines were established, and extensive service activities were carried out at the grassroots level across the country. Tragically, the BMS lost around 600 of its senior activists in the process.
BRICS and L20: An Indian voice in the global labour arena
The BMS has also taken on a new role in global leadership. In 2016, for the first time, the BMS assumed the Presidency of the BRICS Trade Union Forum. The BRICS conference held in India that year received high praise from international delegates for its organisation and hospitality. In 2021, amid the pandemic, the BRICS TUF conference was once again held, this time online, under BMS's presidency.
The year 2023 was a significant milestone as India hosted the G20 Summit under the Presidency of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Labour20 (L20), one of the key verticals of the summit, was chaired by BMS as India's largest central trade union. The L20 conference saw participation from representatives of 20+9 countries, making it the most widely represented L20 event to date. During both the BRICS and L20 conferences, the BMS proposed the idea of universalisation (antyodaya) of labour benefits, an idea that received unanimous appreciation and endorsement from all participating countries.
During the Indo-Pak conflict in May 2025, the BMS declared its unwavering support for the soldiers guarding the nation's borders.
Towards Antyodaya: A future to be built on firm foundations
Today, the BMS comprises over 5,700 unions spanning approximately 60 labour sectors. These have been consolidated into 42 all-India federations active across diverse domains. Going forward, India will face two critical challenges in its labour sector: the vast size of the unorganised sector and the growing trend of contractualisation within the organised sector.
India, unfortunately, holds the ignominious distinction of having the world's largest unorganised labour force. According to government statistics, 93.7% of the working population is in unorganised sector, falling outside the protection of labour laws and social security frameworks. Moreover, the increasing use of contract labour within the organised sector has created a vast number of 'islands" of unorganized labour within it. A stagnant manufacturing sector further pressured by the influx of Chinese goods and a non-profitable agricultural economy have placed a disproportionate burden on the already falling real wage levels and deteriorating working conditions of Indian labour.
At its 2011 Jalgaon conference, the BMS resolved to focus all efforts on addressing issues in the unorganised sector by launching two key initiatives: 'March to Villages' and 'Organise the Unorganised'. The BMS has established a separate wing for unorganised workers, coordinated by senior members and supported by 12 national-level federations. Among them is the Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Gramin Mazdoor Mahasangh, one of the largest tribal federations, actively working in Madhya Pradesh and surrounding states.
A nation cannot claim development while the majority of its working population languishes in low economic standards, poverty and vulnerability. Therefore, the BMS has steadfastly promoted the philosophy of antyodaya—upliftment of the last worker—as an essential component of its foundational ideology, Ekatma Manav Darshan'. The Bharatiya social order envisioned by Thengadi was deeply rooted in this concept.
top videos
View all
Over the decades, the BMS has played a vital role in transforming India's labour sector and will continue this struggle until the vision of antyodaya is fully realised.
Saji Narayanan CK is Former President, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 22, 2025, 18:24 IST
News opinion Opinion | Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh: A Legacy Of 70 Years, A Future Of Hope
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Sultana Siddiqui: The Pakistani TV veteran making shows with cross-border appeal
For years, political hostilities between India and Pakistan have disrupted entertainment exchange, but rarely have restrictions been as sweeping as those triggered by the Pahalgam fallout. The latest wave of bans targeted Pakistani shows on YouTube, blocked streaming access to cross-border dramas on Netflix and Amazon Prime, and even temporarily disabled Instagram accounts of Pakistani actors and peace activists. The clampdown came at a time when Pakistani dramas have been enjoying immense popularity across the border, on digital and social media. They have not just built massive fan bases there, but are also engaging with radical themes that, as Indian journalist Raksha Kumar points out, are missing from Indian television dramas, due to 'superfluous' research, lack of courage or financial constraints. One standout example is a three-part mini series that aired last August on the privately owned Hum TV, produced by veteran television pioneer Sultana Siddiqui. Each installment tells a stand-alone story. Each is bound by the shared theme of how far-right radicals terrorise individuals and the communities they inhabit at large and the limitations of the state to give justice or security to the victims. The final episode of Tan Man Neelo Neel (Body and Soul Covered in Bruises), the last in the trilogy, elicited emotion for audiences in both countries. The lead characters attacked by an angry mob were their parents' only children. They were young people whose dreams were cut short. The story ends with a chilling mosaic honouring real-life victims of 'blasphemy' mob violence like Mashal Khan, a university student in Mardan in 2017 and brothers Mughees and Muneeb Butt, in Sialkot in 2010. Mob violence Many others could have been included. The list is long and includes those who were victimised on the pretext of religion even if mob violence wasn't involved. The theme resonates wherever this phenomenon has occurred. Since she launched Hum TV in 2005, Sultana Siddiqui, now in her late 70s, has used the television channel as a platform for storytelling from a progressive bent of mind, offering a nuanced portrayal of Pakistani society through deeply grounded characters. This isn't the first time her storytelling has crossed borders. Zindagi Gulzar Hai (Life is Beautiful) in 2012 was a hit in India. The series shows a picture of Pakistan different from the narrative seen in the Indian context. Its popularity, fueled by social media, created a demand for Pakistani content in the Indian market. Its lead actor Fawad Khan, went on to become a Bollywood heartthrob, but was then banned in India along with other Pakistani artists following the 2016 Uri attack. The Pakistani film Maula Jatt that he stars in was due to be released in India, but that has been stalled too. The release of a Bollywood romance he stars in, Abir Gulaal, is now also in limbo due to renewed hostilities. Countering 'foreign' serials What catalysed Sultana Siddiqui to start Hum TV channel was a desire to create relevant content rooted in Pakistan. 'My son asked, 'Are you sure this will work? Indian channels are dominating ratings.' I told him, 'Give it two days – those ratings won't last',' she recalls. 'I was scared too. But when it happened, the entire atmosphere shifted. Not just in Pakistan, but anywhere Urdu is spoken.' She wanted to counter the dominance of 'foreign' serials, particularly Indian dramas known for their sensationalist aesthetics. 'Those vibrant colored walls, the dramatic music, and women cooking without a single stain on their clothes – it all used to bother me,' she says. The series are part of a long line of Hum TV productions that have challenged social norms, like Udaari (Soaring, on child sexual abuse) and Dar Si Jaati Hai Silah (Silah Gets a Bit Scared, on domestic violence). Speaking to Sapan News at her office in Karachi, Sultana Siddiqui recalled the backlash against Udaari (2016), which state-run regulators branded 'immoral ' and threatened to shut down. 'I asked them, 'What exactly do you gain by doing this?'' she recalled. Their reply? 'You get a lot of publicity'.' Public support But Siddiqui believes it wasn't just the regulators. 'When one of my dramas performs exceptionally well, there are always two kinds of competitors – those who respond positively, and those who don't. I choose to rise above. But some out of sheer spite think, 'It's doing well, so let's bring it down,' and they write complaints.' Udaari received a record number of notices from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, an indication of how much pushback such socially conscious shows can get. The subject matter, she was told, was too 'bold' to ignore. Her response: 'Look at the end – the rapist was caught and punished. The purpose of Udaari was to show that if you see your child disturbed, talk to them. Because often, it's the nearest person who abuses the child, someone they trust.' What sustained her was support from the public. 'That's where we drew our strength from, to fight the case legally,' Sultana Siddiqui says. 'Sorry, but we are not followers; we create and make others follow.' She admits having to self-censor many aspects of her productions. 'Of course, you can play it safe, but if you're intelligent, you should know what your purpose is.' While Pakistani television channels today enjoy far more freedom than under military regimes, it was Pakistan's last military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, who in fact allowed private channels to start. 'Back then we mostly adapted novels into dramas, where the mother was the epitome of goodness,' she says. 'They were slow-paced and good in their own right, but their reach and impact were limited. The subjects were limited too – you couldn't tackle issues like child abuse… You couldn't even show a couple holding hands. That's not the case now.' In contrast, films get caught in layers of bureaucracy with those in different regulatory departments 'sending mixed signals – one says yes, the other says no'. The horrific cases of mob violence in Pakistan affected Siddiqui on a personal level, she said, leading her to create the Tan Man series as a response. 'I don't have the energy anymore to keep running around, directing projects,' she admits. 'But I saw something that shattered me. I just hope some change comes from it – something that makes me feel like I've done my part. If nothing else, at least it brings some awareness.' 'When I see things like this, I know it's already time for me to bow out,' she says. 'But before I do, I want to leave behind something meaningful." Alongside Tan Man Neelo Neel, which runs for 11 episodes, the trilogy features Mann Jogi with nine episodes and Nadaan with eight. The latter tackles the controversial practice of ' Halala Nikah ' and exposes how religious doctrine is exploited for personal political gain. The second installment, Nadaan, directed by filmmaker Mehreen Jabbar (Ramchand Pakistani, 2008), examines the scourge of drug addiction. The story shows how drug addicts pose threats to people around them; they resist the opening of rehabilitation centres that might weaken their grip, hiding behind performative piety to deflect scrutiny, and ultimately incite mob violence to protect their influence and preserve the toxic ecosystems they benefit from. Cross-border drama Sultana Siddiqui has always strongly favoured the inclusion of cross-border talent in Pakistani and Indian cultural productions. She has participated in various bilateral conferences and meetings, including those organised by Aman Ki Asha (Hope for Peace), a joint platform initiated in 2010 by the two biggest media groups of India and Pakistan. At the 2018 inaugural Pakistan International Film Festival, which Sultana Siddiqui hosted in Karachi, she invited prominent Indian industry figures as guests, including the team behind the blockbuster film Baahubali. But when she informally asked one of them, a veteran writer, to create content for Pakistani audiences, he politely declined, citing 'grave risks'. Sultana Siddiqui advocates for a more equitable exchange of cultural assets between India and Pakistan. She doesn't mind Indian productions hiring Pakistani writers but 'it should be a two-way street. For every writer they take, we should get one in return – maybe even agree on a percentage.' There are other kinds of risks involved in collaboration that may derail such efforts. There have been cases of storylines from Pakistan being picked up by Indian productions but then, 'things were added according to their own wishes.' State policy has also played its part. In 2016, Pakistan banned Indian dramas on its television channels, after India's unofficial curbs on Pakistani artists. The blackout, she notes, did give a short-term boom to homegrown content, but the real game-changer has been the rise of digital streaming platforms. Not all of Hum TV's projects have been free from critique. The 2019 television series Ehd-e-Wafa, a collaboration with the military's media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations, drew criticism for glorifying the army and depicting other professions and state institutions unfairly. Earlier ISPR-sponsored shows like Alpha Bravo Charlie (1998) and Sunehre Din (1991) focused on military life without overt political messaging. Asked whether private channels should be subject to such influence, Sultana Siddiqui stresses that collaboration should involve professionals who understand the craft. The conversation with Sultana Siddiqui took place in Urdu and the quotes provided are approximate English translations.


Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India's bulldozer demolitions are being fuelled by political silence
In June, the Assam government demolished just over 600 Muslim homes in Goalpara district in what it described as a crackdown on ' illegal encroachments '. In Jahangirpuri in Delhi, homes and shops were razed despite a Supreme Court stay in April. The next month, the Ahmedabad municipality demolished 8,500 houses in Danilimda in a drive aimed at 'illegal Bangladeshis'. The same month, in Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, a mosque under construction was demolished without warning. Bulldozers have emerged as the state's favourite weapon in Narendra Modi's India, flattening Muslim neighbourhoods with clinical choreography. Each such demolition redraws the geography of citizenship and belonging. Like Israel's bulldozers in Gaza and the West Bank, India's bulldozers flatten buildings while erasing memory, rewriting history and reinforcing majoritarian rule. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben warns of the 'state of exception': legal limbo where democratic rights are suspended in the name of national interest. Agamben's 'state of exception' is evident when citizenship is overridden by suspicion, when due process is abandoned and when the law is fashioned into a tool of punishment. The state that is meant to protect rights becomes an agent of violation. 'We lost everything in a day,' Fatima Begum, a mother of four in Goalpara told The Observer Post. 'My children now suffer in the heat and rain. We only ask for dignity and safety.' Dignity is precisely what is being denied, deliberately. In Goalpara, the administration cited a 2021 land notification, claiming that the homes were located in a wetland. If that is true, why were only Muslim homes demolished? Were notices issued? What compensation was paid? Was there the basic recognition that these are landowners, labourers, teachers, children – citizens? 'This is not just an attack on property but on our identity,' schoolteacher Imran Hussain told The Observer Post. The bulldozer, as the mascot of a majoritarian state, arrives after riots, militant attacks or just before elections. It performs collective punishment, collapses the law into spectacle and leaves behind silence. It is demographic engineering bearing a saffron flag. The bulldozer is theology in motion. It enforces a belief that Muslims are intruders on Indian soil and their citizenship conditional. As damning as the state's actions is the near-silence or symbolic deflection of the so-called secular parties. In Assam, the Congress opposition leader wrote to Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of the Bharatiya Janata Party to halt the evictions and the police reportedly stopped an eight-member delegation from reaching the site. But beyond this procedural tokenism, there has been no serious political reckoning, no sustained outrage. Not one senior national leader of the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party or Trinamool Congress showed up. Apart from a few headlines, there was no press conference or protest. There is now a quiet consensus across much of the political spectrum that Muslim suffering no longer warrants attention. The logic is cynical and dangerous: Muslims will not vote for the BJP anyway, so why speak? Why risk Hindu votes by opposing bulldozers? A few lone voices, like Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali, have spoken out. But most parties are mute, cautious or calculating, treating Muslim pain as a liability rather than a constitutional crisis. This is the new arithmetic of Indian politics. Parties flaunt their Hinduness, visiting temples, reciting mantras, donning sacred threads, believing that if they just appear Hindu enough, political victory is certain. However, Hindutva is not just a vote bank but a project of erasure. The more political parties pander to this script, the more they become like the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi – hollow, spineless, and complicit. The BJP may have started the bulldozer down this dangerous path, but it is the silence of the rest that propels it forward. Much like the Zionist strategies in Palestine, where demolitions serve to fragment, displace and erase Palestinian presence, India's Hindutva regime is scripting its own slow-motion Nakba. Even the Supreme Court, which has declared such demolitions 'totally unconstitutional', is routinely ignored. When bulldozers move faster than law, what remains of constitutionalism? More than a 'Muslim issue', this is a warning to every Indian. When citizenship becomes negotiable for one community, all are rendered vulnerable. We are witnessing the emergence of a parallel era where excavators dictate justice and headlines normalise apartheid. Where displaced women are forced to give birth in plastic tents. Where children study in the shadows of debris. Where heatstroke deaths are accepted collateral in the war against an unwanted identity. The bulldozer is an emblem of Hindu supremacy that leaves behind broken lives and the broken promise of equal citizenship. Listen to the sound of a republic disappearing: crumbling homes and the steady hum of machinery.


The Print
15 minutes ago
- The Print
Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism
Mrs Gandhi and Modi took over in completely different circumstances. There was also the differential in political capital they began with. Mrs Gandhi had not won an election in 1966. She was a convenient compromise after Lal Bahadur Shastri's death. She didn't help her cause by looking overawed in Parliament early on, and socialist Ram Manohar Lohia dismissed her as a 'goongi gudiya' (a doll who didn't speak). She had also inherited a broken economy. The growth rate in 1965 was negative, -2.6 percent in fact. The triple blow of a war, droughts, food shortages and instability, and the deaths of two Prime Ministers in harness within 19 months had weakened India. First of all, we need to look at the larger political realities in which each took over power and the challenges to their authority. Then we will assess their record across four dimensions: politics, strategic and foreign affairs, the economy, and nationalism. On the day Narendra Modi won his third term in June, 2024, it was inevitable that this year, he would become India's second longest serving Prime Minister in consecutive terms, surpassing Indira Gandhi (24 January, 1966 to 24 March, 1977). It also became inevitable, therefore, that around this time in 2025, the season of Modi vs Indira comparisons will begin. Let me be the first, or among the first, off the block. The picture for Modi in 2014 was the exact opposite. He won a majority, the first in India after 30 years, and was his party's chosen candidate; the economy was averaging a robust 6.5 percent growth across the preceding 15 years. His was a peaceful, planned, predictable electoral transition. The degree of difficulty on his first day in power was way lower than Mrs Gandhi's, just as his political capital was enormously higher. It is also important to underline that Mrs Gandhi's 11th year wasn't electorally earned, but self-gifted by mauling the Constitution in a Parliament where she had a brute majority (Congress was 352 out of 518) and the Opposition in jail. In contrast, Modi's third term was earned through general elections, though he fell short of a majority this time. His 11 years have seen no challenge, either within his party or from the Opposition. The global situation has also mostly remained stable and favourable, until the arrival of Trump 2.0. Also Read: RSS chief Bhagwat draws the line at 75. India's politics stares at the Modi Exception Now, the comparisons across the four dimensions we listed. On domestic politics, the first question is: who's been the strongest Prime Minister of India, Modi or Indira? The rest don't count. While Mrs Gandhi redefined her politics in an ideology (deep-pink socialist) first out of compulsion and then preference, Modi was born, dyed and seasoned in his (saffron). Mrs Gandhi's power ebbed and peaked with the times. Modi's has almost been constant, barring the few months of hard dip after the 240 seats of 2024. Even at 240 now, one challenge he need not bother about is from within his party. He's marginalised all, replacing the state satraps with unknown lightweights. That isn't so different from Mrs Gandhi. On ruthlessness, therefore, they are equally matched. On dealing with the Opposition and free speech, the Emergency will be a hard act to match even if somebody—God forbid—wished to do so. On the respect for institutions, the competition is tough, like a dead heat. For convenience, let's limit ourselves to just one institution: the Rashtrapati. With V.V. Giri, Mrs Gandhi reduced the job to that of a porcelain president: a fragile, ornamental object expected to do nothing except sign on the dotted line. The Modi era presidents have been of a piece with those. Modi rose with the power of a '56-inch chest', Mrs Gandhi was often described in times innocent of political correctness as the only man in her Cabinet. Both lived up to these propositions. With Mrs Gandhi, we saw another manifestation of political skill, out of power and back again in 1977-84. But that period is out of the syllabus in this 11-year comparison. Also Read: One prime minister's 19-month legacy is bigger than another's Emergency An important question is who kept India's cohesion better. Mrs Gandhi ruthlessly fought insurgencies in Mizoram and Nagaland. Her troubles on this score came post-1980. Modi has made a dramatic improvement in the Kashmir Valley, and continued with normalisation in the Northeast. But Manipur is an unending failure. A big positive is the near destruction of the Maoists in east-central tribal India. This dovetails neatly into strategic and foreign affairs. Mrs Gandhi's 11 years were across the peak of the Cold War. She signed a treaty with the Soviet Union with a cleverly drafted mutual security clause, endured the Nixon-Kissinger tilt to China, and deftly navigated the narrow spaces still available to India. Modi started out with a 'friends with all' approach but Pakistan-China realities soon caught up with personalised diplomacy. Mrs Gandhi announced India's nuclear status in 1974 (Pokhran-1) but it took Modi in 2019 (Balakot) and in 2025 (Operation Sindoor) to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff. That's a big plus in his corner. As things soured in the neighbourhood, India warmed up to the US/West and then the complexity of Ukraine arose. This gave rise to multi-alignment. The Trump bull has trampled all over this China shop. Pakistan is playing the US and China as it did in 1971. And like Mrs Gandhi then, Modi has to look for alternatives, but then, the Soviet Union is long gone. His predicament is tougher than Mrs Gandhi's in 1971, but India is enormously stronger. The economy is where we might have expected to see many contrasts, but surprisingly, there are many similarities, too. Modi came to power promising to be the exact opposite of Mrs Gandhi, asserting that it's no business of the government to be in business. But on many basic instincts, he's emulated her. The larger, if enormously more efficient distributive politics, for example. An abiding commitment to the public sector instead of privatisation. Even this year, the budget allocated Rs 5 trillion for fresh investments in PSUs. Compare that with our defence budget, Rs 6.81 trillion. Modi has brought in some significant reform—digital payments, GST and the bankruptcy code. Many others, from mining to manufacturing and electricity economics, are meandering. In his first and second terms, Modi attempted some audacious reform—land acquisition, farm and labour reform laws, lateral entry into civil services. All have been given up now. Until Trump came to power, Modi seemed settled into the 6-6.5 percent figure, which we'd risk calling the Hindutva rate of growth. The logic: a politics driven by Hindu identity and polarisation would win elections with 6-6.5 percent risk-free. The Trump arm-twisting and the resultant free trade agreements have rocked that leisurely cruise. Let's see if this can force fresh reform at gunpoint. And finally, how do we compare the two greatest proponents of employing nationalism in their politics? For Mrs Gandhi the backdrop was multiple wars between 1962 and 1971. India was already a jai jawan, jai kisan country. The liberation of Bangladesh, Green Revolution and non-aligned world's adulation fuelled her nationalism. Modi's nationalism is more muscular, in military livery. We can't prejudge the consequences of a commitment trap in promising to respond militarily to a terror act and leave it to historians to reflect on the consequences of such strategic predictability. Under Modi, a new Hinduised nationalism has emerged. While this has united a critical mass of Hindus to keep him secure, it has also created divisions. India's adversaries would be tempted to run a dagger through these. We've seen the Pakistanis try that not just with our Muslims but also the Sikhs, especially during Operation Sindoor. Also Read: You can put words in Mrs Gandhi's mouth & get away. But too much fiction, and you mess with Bhindranwale