Why Congress Increasingly Resembles the Early Muslim League

“An op-ed by Harsh Singh Dahiya on how the Indian National Congress has drifted from civic nationalism to communal representation, increasingly treating Muslims as a separate political constituency, and why its politics today bears a striking resemblance to the ideological foundations of the early Muslim League.”

For decades, the Indian National Congress has presented itself as the custodian of secularism, constitutionalism and inclusive nationalism. Yet a closer examination of its political conduct reveals a striking paradox. The party that claims to stand for civic nationalism increasingly engages in a form of politics that treats religious communities, particularly Muslims, as distinct political constituencies requiring separate legal arrangements, special political safeguards and collective negotiation through religious leadership. In doing so, Congress appears to be moving away from the idea of equal citizenship and toward a model of communal representation that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the political logic that once fuelled the growth of the Muslim League.

This comparison is often misunderstood. The argument is not that Congress seeks another Partition or that it explicitly endorses separatism. Such claims would be both inaccurate and intellectually lazy. The more serious concern is that Congress increasingly accepts the foundational assumptions upon which the early Muslim League was built. Before it demanded Pakistan, the Muslim League argued that Muslims constituted a distinct political community whose interests differed from those of the wider population and therefore required special political safeguards and separate representation. The tragedy of India's Partition was not born overnight in 1947. It emerged gradually from the acceptance of communal political thinking. It is this pattern that deserves scrutiny today.

At the heart of the issue lies Congress's approach to Muslim politics. Instead of treating Muslims primarily as individual citizens with diverse aspirations, the party often addresses them as a collective political bloc. Congress rhetoric frequently revolves around Muslim representation, Muslim fears, Muslim reservations and Muslim identity. Far less attention is paid to entrepreneurship, innovation, educational excellence or economic advancement within the community. The result is a politics that reinforces communal identity rather than transcending it. When citizens are repeatedly encouraged to think of themselves first as members of a religious group and only later as members of a common nation, the foundations of civic nationalism begin to weaken.

Perhaps no episode illustrates this tendency more clearly than the Shah Bano case of 1986. The Supreme Court sought to strengthen the rights of a divorced Muslim woman by granting maintenance protections consistent with constitutional principles. Instead of defending the judgment, the Rajiv Gandhi government reversed its effect after pressure from conservative Muslim clerics. The significance of Shah Bano goes far beyond a single legal dispute. It established a precedent that when constitutional reform collided with clerical opposition, Congress was prepared to retreat. The party chose appeasement of religious leadership over the advancement of individual rights.

The Shah Bano episode also exposed another recurring feature of Congress politics: its preference for conservative intermediaries over reformist voices. Arif Mohammad Khan courageously defended the Supreme Court judgment and advocated reform from within the Muslim community. Rather than standing with him, Congress effectively sided with those who opposed reform. Over the decades, similar patterns have emerged repeatedly. Whether on questions of personal law, gender justice or social reform, Congress has often appeared more comfortable engaging with religious establishments than empowering modernising voices within the community.

This contradiction becomes even more apparent in the debate over the Uniform Civil Code. The Constitution envisions a future in which all citizens are governed by a common set of civil laws irrespective of religion. Yet Congress has consistently resisted meaningful movement in that direction. Supporters of the party describe this position as protection of diversity. Critics see something different. They see the defence of legal exceptionalism based on religious identity. A secular republic ultimately rests on the principle that citizenship, not faith, should determine one's legal relationship with the state. By defending separate personal laws indefinitely, Congress reinforces the idea that religious communities require distinct legal arrangements rather than equal treatment under a common framework.

The same pattern can be observed in the debate over Triple Talaq. While many Muslim women welcomed reform, Congress adopted a cautious position that critics viewed as excessively deferential to conservative opinion. Once again, the perception emerged that the party was less interested in empowering individual citizens than in preserving its relationship with established religious leadership.

The issue extends beyond legal reform and enters the realm of state policy. In Telangana, Congress governments played a central role in establishing Muslim reservations through the backward class framework, while senior party leaders have publicly advocated further expansion of such policies. In Karnataka, Congress defended Muslim quota structures and later introduced reservation for Muslims in public contracts. Supporters argue that these measures address backwardness. Critics argue that they reflect a broader tendency to view Muslims as a distinct political constituency deserving community-specific benefits. Whatever one's position, the larger question remains unavoidable. Is the citizen the primary unit of public policy, or is the religious community?

Congress attempts to resolve this tension by presenting such measures as welfare initiatives. Yet the cumulative effect is unmistakable. Minority commissions, minority budgets, minority sub-plans, minority-specific promises and minority-focused political outreach all reinforce a particular vision of politics. That vision is not rooted in common citizenship. It is rooted in communal categorisation. The state increasingly engages communities as communities rather than citizens as citizens.

The Batla House controversy where Sonia Gandhi cried for the terrorists killed in the encounter further highlighted this perception. The controversy was not simply about a particular encounter. It was about the broader political message conveyed by Congress leaders. Many critics felt that Congress appeared more concerned with managing the electoral perceptions of a particular constituency than unequivocally standing behind security personnel who had risked and sacrificed their lives in the fight against terrorism. Whether that perception was fair or not, it reinforced an existing belief that electoral calculations frequently influence the party's approach to sensitive national security issues.

The perception that Congress prioritises communal categories over citizenship was reinforced when former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's remarks regarding Muslim minorities having the first claim on resources became a major political controversy. Regardless of the intended meaning, such statements strengthened the belief that Congress increasingly approaches governance through the prism of community identity.

The roots of this tendency can be traced much further back in history. Congress's support for the Khilafat Movement marked one of the earliest instances in which religious mobilisation became intertwined with nationalist politics. While the motivations behind that support remain debated, the precedent was significant. Rather than insisting on a purely civic conception of nationalism, Congress entered a political arena increasingly shaped by religious identities. Similar criticisms have been made regarding various compromises on national symbols and issues where communal sensitivities were allowed to shape public policy.

Taken together, these developments reveal a deeper transformation. Congress increasingly functions as a broker between communities rather than as a champion of a unified civic identity. Political success is pursued through negotiation with religious, caste and communal blocs. Citizenship becomes secondary to group identity. In this framework, religious leadership acquires political significance because communities are treated as collective entities whose support must be secured through targeted concessions.

This is where the comparison with the early Muslim League becomes relevant. Before the demand for Pakistan emerged, the League's politics revolved around four core assumptions. First, Muslims constituted a separate political community. Second, their interests differed from those of the majority. Third, those interests required special safeguards. Fourth, those interests were best represented through collective political negotiation. Modern Congress pretends to reject separatism and to remain committed to India's territorial unity. Yet many of its policies and political strategies appear to accept each of these four assumptions.

The greatest danger is not territorial division but psychological division. Nations are not held together merely by borders. They are held together by shared civic consciousness. When politics repeatedly emphasises communal identities, encourages citizens to think in terms of religious blocs and institutionalises separate arrangements for different communities, it gradually erodes the idea of a common national identity. The lesson of Partition was not merely that India should never again be divided geographically. The deeper lesson was that politics organised around religious communities ultimately weakens national unity.

Congress once championed itself to be the torchbearer of a movement that sought to build a nation of equal citizens. Today, it increasingly appears committed to a model that treats communities as the primary actors in political life. That shift may produce short-term electoral gains, but it carries long-term consequences for the character of the Republic. A nation as diverse as India can remain united only when citizenship takes precedence over communal identity. The future strength of Indian democracy will depend on whether political parties reinforce that principle or continue down a path that revives the very logic that history has already judged so harshly.

---

About the Author:

Harsh Singh Dahiya is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a legal and political commentator who appears regularly on leading news platforms including CNN-News18, Times Now, NDTV and NewsX.

His work focuses on Indian politics, national security and international affairs, with particular attention to questions of sovereignty, state power and India’s position in the evolving global order.