Iconoclastic Folly

India prides itself on its secular Constitution which has been so designed to accommodate its bewildering plurality. Yet, the desecration of the national emblem at the Hazratbal mosque in Srinagar was both a display of sectarian arrogance and cowardly political calculation. Vandals, apparently certain that a sculpted Ashoka Emblem has no place in a Muslim shrine, chipped away at a renovation plaque.

It must be said that the decision to affix the Ashoka Emblem at the Hazratbal shrine was, at best, ill-judged. In a context where monotheism demands the strict rejection of icons, the choice was provocative. But such poor architectural judgment hardly excuses vandalism. The Constitution does not permit citizens to take it upon themselves to correct state decisions with chisels and hammers.

The political class has responded, as usual, with unseemly equivocation. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah chose to question the very wisdom of placing the emblem at the shrine, tacitly validating the vandals’ reasoning. He objected to the use of the Public Safety Act against the perpetrators. National Conference leaders and Mehbooba Mufti of the People’s Democratic Party leapt to defend the vandals, calling the act ‘blasphemous.’

It is interesting that the Congress, the self-proclaimed guardian of constitutional values, is conspicuously silent. While it screeches ‘Save the Constitution!’ at every policy move of the Modi government, where is it now that the Ashoka Emblem - the most visible symbol of India’s sovereignty - has been vandalised? So too are other parties that masquerade as defenders of pluralism but prefer the easy path of opportunistic silence. Where are the saviours of the Constitution now, when its emblems are reduced to battleground props for sectarian grandstanding? One only wonders how the same secular tribe of politicos and press would have reacted had a similar instance occurred against a Hindu shrine.

India’s Ashoka Emblem is not a relic of colonial bureaucracy. It is a declaration of sovereignty, unity, and democratic values. To assault it in the name of religious purity is not an act of faith but an act of political vandalism born from an intolerance deeply embedded in the monotheist worldview that rejects plurality and seeks uniformity at the point of a sword. It bespeaks a narrow-mindedness that is all too eager to throw constitutional ideals under the bus of identity politics.

The Constitution demands not passive tolerance but active defence. Every self-respecting secularist ought to denounce this assault in unequivocal terms, lest they be seen as complicit. Otherwise, India risks becoming a patchwork of petty fiefdoms where each faith group decides its own rules, and every symbol of national unity becomes fair game.

The emblem, like the Constitution itself, stands for more than state pride. It stands for an idea that despite the cacophony of languages, religions and regions, India remains indivisible. Those who vandalise it reveal their own fragility, a desperate attempt to assert power by tearing down the nation’s symbols. And those who fail to condemn them are no better.