Secularism and BJP governments spending public money on celebration of Hindu festival

 

Secularism and BJP governments spending public money on celebration of Hindu festival

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led governments in India, particularly at the state level (e.g., Uttar Pradesh under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath), have allocated significant public funds to organize and promote major Hindu festivals. These include events like the Kumbh Mela and Ayodhya's Deepotsav. Such expenditures are often justified by the government as efforts to boost cultural heritage, tourism, and economic activity rather than purely religious promotion. However, critics, including opposition leaders and constitutional experts, argue that this practice contravenes India's secular framework by using taxpayer money to favor one religion, potentially violating principles of state neutrality.

 Key Examples of Public Spending

- Kumbh Mela (2025, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh): The Uttar Pradesh government invested a record ₹70 billion (approximately £640 million) in infrastructure, sanitation, security, and publicity for the event, which drew an estimated 400 million devotees. This included a nationwide campaign featuring images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The festival was framed as a blend of religious significance and modern development, with Modi personally participating in rituals. While attendance shattered records, a crowd crush in January 2025 resulted in at least 30 deaths, highlighting logistical challenges funded by public resources.

- Ayodhya Deepotsav (October 19, 2025, Uttar Pradesh): The state government organized a grand Diwali celebration, including the lighting of 150,000 oil lamps (diyas) along the Saryu River, a world-record aarti with 2,100 performers, light-and-sound shows, and fireworks. Chief Minister Adityanath led the event, which was promoted as a symbol of Lord Ram's return and a tourism draw. Exact expenditure figures were not publicly detailed, but opposition figures questioned the use of public funds for purchasing lamps and organizing rituals, estimating costs in crores of rupees based on similar past events.

These are not isolated; earlier instances include the 2019 Kumbh Mela, where the central government under Modi spent unprecedented sums (over ₹4,000 crore) on the event ahead of elections, blending religious grandeur with political messaging.

Constitutional Perspective on Secularism and Public Funding

India's Constitution enshrines secularism as a core principle, explicitly added to the Preamble in 1976 and affirmed as a "basic structure" by the Supreme Court in the 1994 S.R. Bommai case, meaning it cannot be altered by amendments. Relevant provisions under Articles 25–28 guarantee freedom of religion while mandating state neutrality:

Article 25: Freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.  Allows personal religious expression but permits state regulation to prevent favoritism. Festivals can be practiced privately, but state sponsorship risks unequal treatment.

Article 26:  Right of religious denominations to manage their affairs. Empowers communities to self-govern, reducing justification for state intervention or funding.

Article 27: No taxes shall be levied for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. Directly prohibits using public (taxpayer) funds to promote one faith, as it compels citizens to subsidize beliefs they may not share. Critics cite this as violated by festival spending, viewing it as indirect "promotion."

Article 28:  No religious instruction in state-funded institutions (with exceptions for endowed ones). Reinforces separation by barring state resources from religious education or worship, extending analogously to events.

Article 27 is pivotal: It bars the appropriation of tax proceeds for religious promotion, ensuring the state does not act as a patron. Legal scholars argue that funding Hindu-specific festivals like Deepotsav or Kumbh Mela breaches this by prioritizing one religion, potentially eroding equality under Article 14 (right to equality). The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on festival funding but has upheld secularism in related contexts, such as dismissing challenges to interfaith participation in state events (September 2025 judgment) and protecting minority rights in school funding cases.

Criticisms and Defenses

- Criticisms (Against Secularism): Opposition leaders like Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav have called such spending a "waste" and insensitive to fiscal priorities, urging a shift to year-round illuminations like Christmas abroad—sparking backlash for allegedly mocking Hindu traditions. Congress's Rashid Alvi echoed this, stating public funds for "religious matters like lamps" violate the Constitution.

 Broader concerns include politicization: Events like Kumbh Mela are seen as tools for BJP's Hindutva agenda, fostering a "Hindu Rashtra" narrative that sidelines minorities and undermines secularism. In 2023, Uttar Pradesh's allocation of funds for festivals like Ram Navami was labelled an "attempt to enmesh religion with administration."

- Defenses (Cultural, Not Religious):

 BJP leaders counter that these are cultural celebrations promoting unity and tourism, not religious endorsements. For instance, Uttar Pradesh Deputy CM Keshav Prasad Maurya accused critics of "insulting Hindu faith" for vote-bank politics, emphasizing diyas as symbols of harmony. The government argues such events generate economic benefits (e.g., jobs, pilgrim economy) and align with India's pluralistic heritage, where national holidays include festivals from multiple faiths (Diwali, Eid, Christmas). No major court has struck down these expenditures, suggesting a gray area where "cultural" framing provides leeway.

 Conclusion: A Contested Practice

Yes, BJP governments are spending public money on Hindu festivals, with documented examples totaling billions of rupees in recent years. Whether this is "against the concept of secularism" depends on interpretation: Legally, it treads close to Article 27's prohibition, raising valid concerns about state favouritism in a multi-religious society. Politically, it fuels debates on Hindutva's role in governance. For a definitive resolution, affected citizens could petition courts, but current practice persists amid ongoing contention. India's secularism remains aspirational—balancing faith with equality—rather than absolute.

Courtesy: Grok