top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Ideology, Illusion, and the Politics of Power

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi greets supporters during a roadshow ahead of the Kerala assembly polls, in Kozhikode district on Tuesday. | Pic: PTI New Delhi:  At a critical electoral juncture in Kerala, the political contest being waged in the name of ideology appears less about public welfare and more like a renewed struggle for the division of power. Kerala's electoral battle exposes contradictions between ideology and alliances, as BJP, Congress, and Left trade...

Ideology, Illusion, and the Politics of Power

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi greets supporters during a roadshow ahead of the Kerala assembly polls, in Kozhikode district on Tuesday. | Pic: PTI New Delhi:  At a critical electoral juncture in Kerala, the political contest being waged in the name of ideology appears less about public welfare and more like a renewed struggle for the division of power. Kerala's electoral battle exposes contradictions between ideology and alliances, as BJP, Congress, and Left trade accusations while prioritizing power, leaving voters questioning credibility, governance plans, and commitment to justice.   At the national level, the Congress and the Left position themselves as opponents of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Yet before the public, they often appear equally eager to undercut one another. In Parliament, they join hands to bring no-confidence motions and accuse the government of misusing investigative agencies. However, at the state level, this coordination is conspicuously absent. In Kerala, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has alleged a nexus between the CPI(M) and the SDPI, even hinting at tacit understandings between the BJP and the Left. Meanwhile, LDF Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has dismissed these claims as "entirely baseless."   This persistent friction reinforces the impression that ideology has become largely symbolic, while the real contest revolves around consolidating vote banks and securing seats. The Left, invoking the language of "pragmatic alliances," signals readiness to align with the Congress at the national level. Yet in Kerala, it faces accusations of straying from its foundational principles, even as it projects itself as the principal alternative to the BJP.   Conspiracy factor Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly asserted in his campaign rallies that this election is a contest between two ideologies-the Left and the UDF. Yet, he claims, for the first time there is an "unprecedented partnership" emerging between the Left and the BJP. He alleges that the CPI(M) can be easily controlled by the BJP, whereas the Congress-led UDF would not play into its hands. Such assertions risk creating the impression that ideological confrontation has now given way to a politics of expedient compromises.   On the other hand, CM Pinarayi Vijayan firmly maintains that his party neither seeks support from the SDPI nor engages in any covert understanding with communal forces. He portrays the Left Democratic Front as a formation grounded in "clear ideological principles" and resolutely opposed to communal politics. The contradiction here is striking that just as the BJP accuses the Congress and the Left of collusion, the Congress and the Left, in turn, level similar charges of "compromise" against each other.   Confused Electorate In Kerala's electoral theatre, PM Modi has branded both the UDF and the LDF as "each other's B team," while projecting the BJP as the only genuine "A team." His argument rests on the claim that the state has, for decades, been trapped between two traditional power blocs, one corrupt and the other allegedly even more so. He contends that both alliances have deceived the public through vote-bank politics, whereas the BJP now promises to "expose" their corruption and deliver "justice."   The larger question remains, when the Left and the Congress join hands in Parliament to oppose the BJP, is their unity rooted in a principled stand against the ruling party BJP/NDA, or is it merely political theatre calibrated for electoral convenience? If both claim to be ideologically committed formations, what justifies their readiness to confront each other in the states and often aggressively over vote banks?   Real Issues At the national level, the Left often raises its voice on substantive constitutional and economic questions; corruption, public debt, privatization, and decentralization. Yet, in the heat of elections, these very debates are reduced to the arithmetic of vote banks and seat shares. The BJP, as the ruling party, seeks to anchor its campaign in development metrics, flagship projects like the Vizhinjam Port, and symbolic initiatives such as the Nari Shakti Vandan Act, presenting them as tangible achievements before the electorate. The opposition, in turn, attempts to recast these same initiatives as narratives of "debt" and "plunder."

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page