Bharatiya Janata Party leaders intensified their attack on Digvijaya Singh and the Congress after the veteran leader described majoritarian communalism as more dangerous than minority communalism, turning the controversy into a wider political confrontation over secularism, minority politics and electoral legitimacy.
The remarks, made at a Congress event marking Jawaharlal Nehru’s death anniversary, drew a sharp response from BJP figures in Madhya Pradesh and New Delhi. Party leaders accused Singh and the Congress of being “anti-Hindu”, alleging that the opposition party had repeatedly framed majority religious sentiment as a political threat while avoiding a direct challenge to extremism and separatist tendencies among minority groups.
Bhopal BJP MLA Rameshwar Sharma led the attack, invoking the Partition of 1947 to argue that the Congress had failed to confront divisive politics at critical moments in national history. He questioned whether Hindus were responsible for the division of the country and referred to Muhammad Ali Jinnah while alleging that the Congress had historically aligned itself with forces that weakened national unity. Sharma also accused the party of isolating Muslims through vote-bank politics instead of integrating them into the national mainstream.
Singh, a former Madhya Pradesh chief minister and a senior Congress figure, had cited Nehru’s warnings against communalism and argued that the country was witnessing a dangerous rise in majoritarian communal politics. He said Nehru viewed communalism as a poisonous force capable of spreading hatred within the nation, while warning that majoritarian forms of it carried wider consequences because of their capacity to influence state power and public institutions.
The BJP’s criticism quickly moved beyond Singh’s remarks, with party spokespersons seeking to place the controversy within a broader campaign against the Congress-led opposition. Leaders accused Congress of giving ideological space to radicals and anti-national elements, while arguing that its political vocabulary on secularism had become selectively hostile to Hindu identity. Congress leaders, in turn, have maintained that criticism of majoritarian politics is not an attack on any faith but a defence of constitutional values.
The exchange came as the BJP also celebrated a major Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, an exercise strongly opposed by several opposition parties and civil society petitioners. The court held that the revision advanced the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections and found that the poll body had not acted beyond its statutory powers.
The verdict gave the BJP a second line of attack against the opposition. Party figures said the ruling had exposed Congress and its allies, accusing them of opposing voter roll scrutiny because they feared the removal of ineligible names. BJP spokespersons framed the court’s decision as a vindication of the Election Commission and demanded apologies from opposition leaders who had questioned the exercise.
The Supreme Court’s ruling centred on petitions challenging the voter roll revision in Bihar, where the process began before being extended to several other states and Union Territories. Petitioners had argued that the exercise risked excluding eligible citizens, especially poor, rural and marginalised voters who may lack extensive documentation. They also warned that the process could resemble a citizenship-screening exercise, raising concerns over disenfranchisement.
The court rejected the broader challenge but placed limits on the Election Commission’s role in citizenship-related questions. It held that any inquiry by the poll body into eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls does not amount to a final determination of citizenship. The court also directed that names deleted on grounds linked to doubtful citizenship be forwarded to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for adjudication, preserving the distinction between electoral verification and citizenship determination.
Opposition parties remain critical of the ruling, arguing that the issue is not only the legal power of the Election Commission but also the manner in which the exercise is implemented on the ground. Congress, Trinamool Congress, Left parties and Rashtriya Janata Dal figures have warned that large-scale documentation demands could disproportionately affect poorer communities, migrant workers and rural households.
The twin developments have sharpened a familiar fault line in national politics. For the BJP, Singh’s statement and the court ruling together offer an opportunity to portray the Congress as hostile to Hindu concerns and weak on electoral integrity. For the Congress, the controversy underscores its argument that secularism and voter protections are being recast by the ruling party as appeasement or obstruction.
