Kerala CPI(M) uses Bengaluru “anti-Muslim” demolition drive to ideologically equate Congress with Sangh Parivar

The recent political slugfest in Kerala, where the Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M) – vehemently criticized the Congress party for a demolition drive in Bengaluru, equating its actions with those of the Sangh Parivar, offers a rich case study for understanding the complex dynamics of Indian politics, urban governance, and the ever-present debate around secularism. This incident, while local in origin, quickly escalated into a national political debate, highlighting deep-seated ideological rivalries and the strategic use of local issues for broader political mileage.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

Bengaluru, like many rapidly urbanizing Indian cities, frequently grapples with issues of unauthorized constructions and encroachments. Demolition drives are a common, albeit often controversial, tool employed by municipal authorities to clear such structures. In this specific instance, a demolition drive undertaken by the Congress-led government in Karnataka, particularly targeting certain areas, was perceived by some, including the CPI(M), as disproportionately affecting the Muslim community. The CPI(M) in Kerala seized upon this, launching a strong ideological attack, suggesting that the Congress, despite its proclaimed secular credentials, was acting in a manner akin to the Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar (the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP), which is often accused of anti-minority policies. This criticism from a key political rival put the Congress on the defensive, prompting the All India Congress Committee (AICC) General Secretary, K.C. Venugopal, to intervene. He conveyed the AICC’s “serious concern” to D.K. Shivakumar, a prominent Congress leader in Karnataka, emphasizing the need for “caution, sensitivity, and compassion” and keeping “human impact at centre.” This swift damage control by the AICC underscores the political sensitivity of such issues and the party's attempt to reaffirm its secular image.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **CPI(M) (Kerala Unit):** As a primary political rival to the Congress in Kerala, the CPI(M) leveraged this incident to discredit the Congress. Their motivation is rooted in electoral politics, aiming to consolidate minority votes and portray the Congress as ideologically inconsistent or weak in upholding secular values. This move also serves to differentiate its own secular stance from that of the Congress.

2. **Congress Party (Karnataka Unit & AICC):** The Siddaramaiah-led Congress government in Karnataka initiated the demolition drive, likely citing urban planning or encroachment removal as reasons. The AICC, through K.C. Venugopal, stepped in to manage the political fallout, particularly concerned about the party’s national image and its appeal to minority communities across India. D.K. Shivakumar, as a state leader, was the recipient of this high command directive, indicating the central leadership's intervention in state affairs when national image is at stake.

3. **Affected Residents:** The most direct stakeholders are the people whose homes or livelihoods were impacted by the demolition. Their concerns revolve around displacement, loss of property, and the lack of adequate rehabilitation or due process. The perception of discriminatory targeting adds another layer of grievance.

4. **Sangh Parivar (BJP/RSS):** While not directly involved in the Bengaluru demolition, the Sangh Parivar serves as the ideological benchmark against which the CPI(M) cast its criticism of the Congress. This highlights the ongoing political discourse in India where parties are often judged on their adherence to or deviation from secular principles, often in comparison to the BJP's Hindutva ideology.

**Significance for India and Broader Themes:**

This incident is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it exposes the intense **inter-party rivalry** between the Left and Congress, especially in states like Kerala where they are direct competitors. Secondly, it brings to the fore the enduring debate around **secularism and communalism** in Indian politics. The CPI(M)'s accusation forces the Congress to explicitly defend its secular credentials, a cornerstone of its political identity. Thirdly, it highlights critical issues in **urban governance and planning**. Demolition drives, while necessary for planned development, often disproportionately affect marginalized and vulnerable communities who lack formal land titles or legal recourse. This raises questions about **inclusive development, right to shelter, and due process**.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions:**

Demolition drives have a controversial history in India, notably during the Emergency era (1975-77) when large-scale slum clearance operations, like those in Delhi's Turkman Gate, led to widespread displacement and human rights violations. Subsequent decades have seen various governments grappling with similar challenges, often leading to legal battles over the rights of slum dwellers. The Indian Constitution, particularly **Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)**, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to livelihood and shelter. Any state action leading to displacement or demolition must adhere to principles of natural justice and due process, ensuring affected individuals are heard and, where possible, rehabilitated. **Article 14 (Right to Equality)** prohibits arbitrary state action, and **Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)** specifically forbids discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. If a demolition drive is found to be discriminatory on religious lines, it would directly violate these fundamental rights. Furthermore, the spirit of the **Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013**, though primarily for land acquisition, underscores the modern legal expectation for rehabilitation and fair treatment in state-led displacements.

**Future Implications:**

This incident could have several future implications. Politically, it might compel the Congress to adopt a more cautious and transparent approach to urban development projects, especially those involving demolition, to avoid further accusations of insensitivity or communal bias. It could also influence electoral outcomes, particularly among minority voters, if the perception of the Congress's actions persists. For urban governance, it might lead to increased scrutiny on municipal policies, pushing for better rehabilitation frameworks and adherence to due process. The broader political discourse around secularism will continue to be shaped by such incidents, with parties strategically using them to define their ideological positions and attack rivals. Ultimately, it serves as a reminder that local administrative actions can have significant national political and ideological repercussions in a diverse and politically charged nation like India.