Sanjay K. Jha 
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has talked of emergence of a “new consciousness” after the completion of the Maha Kumbh, a pious event that will lay the foundation for the future centuries. Though Kumbh is not an innovation and has continued through the Mughal, British and Congress rule, the prime minister insisted the new consciousness has evolved breaking the slavish mentality of hundreds of years. Probably Modi, unlike other prime ministers, believes political power has authorised him to redefine religion and history.
What’s important, however, is to understand the nature and scope of the “new consciousness”. Are we as Indians going to be more truthful, moral and compassionate henceforth? Do we now expect citizens and rulers to demonstrate greater commitment to fairness and justice? Modi had made similar claims on January 22 last year after the Pran Pratistha ceremony at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, explaining how the historical development will create a new national awakening. Even then, he deprived the poor citizens of the details, relying on vague symbolism instead of specifying the nature and contour of reconstruction of the national character.
By not defining the new consciousness, he is running the risk of creating an impression that the political figurehead of India was using these religious events as a mobilisation technique, aimed not at socio-cultural renewal but only to sustain Sangh Parivar’s hegemonic control. Lofty rhetoric won’t do; he needs to communicate meaningfully about his imagination of new consciousness. What about a press conference with a cross-section of journalists on the solitary question of the new idea of India that is so dramatically different from the one that emerged through the freedom movement? If it is not radically different, how can the Ram temple and Kumbh be the basis of this new consciousness?
Will the prime minister reassure the nation that the foundational principles of India will not be trampled and the constitution will remain the basis of any modified – or Modi-fied – idea of India? This question flits through the mind because the prime minister himself created confusion by hailing Dhirendra Shastri of Bageshwar dham, a shadowy character who spreads superstition, speaks vulgar language and campaigns for Hindu Rashtra.
Also read: Is 2025 Maha Kumbh Really a ‘Rare’ Event Held After 144 Years?
It is the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Adityanath, who describes those who question mismanagement of Kumbh as “pigs” and “vultures”. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the rulers whether the new consciousness promotes crushing and concealment of truth because mismanagement did cause deaths and stampedes, millions travelled with unimaginable difficulties and remained stuck in jams for days. Does the new consciousness discard this section – which mounts pressure on the governments for better facilities to prevent innocent human lives – from the Hindu fold?
The prime minister himself said at a public rally in Bihar that people who spoke against Ram temple are cursing the Kumbh as well. While this monopoly over Ram temple and Kumbh, and its brazen exploitation for political purposes, are in itself perverse, Modi should tell the nation whether this fusion of politics and religion is the new template for grabbing political power. What are other attributes of this new consciousness: electoral malpractices, curbing autonomy of institutions, crippling media, crony capitalism, attacks on syncretic culture, misuse of money power and lack of accountability?
The stalwarts of freedom movement were equally worried about what kind of India they wanted and hence gave a progressive constitution. Modi needs to clearly articulate his vision of new India and whether the country will be run by the tricks of the likes of Shashtri, whom he proudly described as his younger brother? The constitution calls for scientific temper. Is the unusual stress on Ram temple and Kumbh a step in that direction? Today this Kumbh is being hailed as historic only because of the numbers. Will another government scale up the target to 80 crore, or more, and endanger people’s lives at the riverbed and railway stations? Or will the religious practices and rituals be rationalised?
Modi has called the Kumbh a grand “Mahayajna of Unity.” Is that going to be the purpose of the Modi-Yogi governments – unity cutting across caste and religious lines? Modi recalled how he said “Devbhakti se Deshbhakti tak (From devotion to patriotism)” in Ayodhya. Is he trying to link religion to patriotism? Is that constitutional? Mahatma Gandhi was killed by Nathuram Godse precisely because he was seen as an obstacle in the path of Hindu Rashtra. Ironically, a Godse fan was appointed dean at the National Institute of Technology in Calicut just at the same time when Modi was seeing the emergence of a new consciousness.
Modi mentioned Gandhi in his blog on Kumbh. In 1915 Gandhi went to Haridwar Kumbh but this is what he wrote in his autobiography: “I had not gone to Hardvar [Haridwar] with the sentiments of a pilgrim. I have never thought of frequenting places of pilgrimage in search of piety. But the 17 lakh men that were reported to be there could not all be hypocrites or mere sight-seers. I had no doubt that countless people amongst them had gone there to earn merit and for self-purification. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say to what extent this kind of faith uplifts the soul. I therefore passed the whole night immersed in deep thought. There were those pious souls in the midst of the hypocrisy that surrounded them. They would be free of guilt before their Maker. If the visit to Hardvar was in itself a sin, I must publicly protest against it, and leave Hardvar on the day Kumbha. If the pilgrimage to Hardvar and to the Kumbha fair was not sinful, I must impose some act of self-denial on myself in atonement for the iniquity prevailing there and purify myself.”
A good leader will lead the nation into a meaningful discourse on the critical concerns of the world. The government should not be animated by Kumbh and Kanwarias, or lighting millions of lamps on Diwali. Religion has its space but it is not the job of the government to act like the head priest or the chief organiser of every religious event. What’s worse, the government is appearing to issue a statement against diversity and pluralism by perpetually hyping up the centrality of one religion. Democracy is not a majoritarian bulldozer; it is a bus that offers the same seat to the minorities. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief ministers and the prime minister have repeatedly demonstrated that they intend to change the grammar of political mobilisation by using Hindutva as their calling card.
A good leader will not choose to selectively engage with adversaries. A critique on Kumbh management or the hype about Ram temple is met with brutal force. But the prime minister falls silent on questions about unemployment, Adani and China. How can a vocal prime minister, who confronts the opposition like a marauding tank on sundry issues, remain silent in front of the American president who tries to threaten and blackmail India into bad bargains? Was that a reflection of the post-Kumbh consciousness? Because India has seen Indira Gandhi, a courageous prime minister who refused to be cowed down by American pressure despite far worse domestic circumstances.
Also read: Why Gandhi’s 1915 Kumbh Mela Reflections Matter in 2025
Before the creation of Bangladesh, Indira not only brushed aside constant diplomatic pressures and threats by America, she carried out her operation against Pakistan even as the American military fleet reached the Bay of Bengal. Indira’s tough posturing during the formal conversations infuriated American President Richard Nixon but she showed the courage to talk on equal terms. As if that was not enough, she later wrote to Nixon, accusing America of frittering away opportunities to extract a political settlement to the crisis.
Indira had shown her courage earlier also, during her visit to the United States in 1966 when she practically went there with a begging bowl amidst severe food crisis in India. American President Lyndon Johnson got fascinated by her charm and wanted to dance with her. But Indira refused. She did devalue the rupee on US demand and issue a pro-America statement on Vietnam. But she soon reversed her stance on Vietnam, deploring America, scrapped the Indo-American Education Foundation – which was part of the deal with Johnson – and cosied up to the Soviet Union to rebuff America.
The global dynamics has changed and India wants good ties with the US but that doesn’t mean bowing to Donald Trump’s unjust pressures. While the reciprocal tariff is going to badly harm India, the aircraft deal will be a terrible bargain. A strong prime minister, with a renewed post-Kumbh consciousness, will have to stand up to Trump’s bullying tactics. Muscle-flexing against Rahul Gandhi and Lalu Prasad Yadav means little for national pride.
Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.