Kerala: Bharat Mata Row and LDF Govt’s Defence of Secularism
Sam
THE recent controversy over the display of a Bharat Mata portrait at Kerala’s Raj Bhavan during official programmes has reignited the debate on secular values and the ever increasing attempts by the RSS-BJP combine to assert their communal agenda even in constitutional spaces. The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government in Kerala and its ministers have taken a principled stand, defending the secular and progressive ethos enshrined in the Indian Constitution, even as the Raj Bhavan in Thiruvananthapuram appears increasingly aligned with Hindutva symbolism.
The image which later gained currency as Bharat Mata first emerged in Abanindranath Tagore’s painting in 1905, which was published in the famous periodical of arts and culture, Prabasi, with the caption, Matrimurti. The word in Bengali means the figure of the mother. Abanindranath Tagore had based his representation on the common, everyday Bengali woman, and it was an ode to her. He had even thought of the painting's title as ‘Banga Mata’, meaning the ‘Mother of Bengal’.
As the artwork depicted a saffron-clad woman, holding a book, sheaves of paddy, a piece of white cloth, and a rudraksha garland in her four hands, it is even perceived to have been based on the personification of the nation as described by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in his Anandamath. As it was painted during the anti-colonial Swadeshi movement, it evoked strong nationalist feelings and metamorphosed into a pan-Indian figure.
The Swadeshi movement began as a response to the Partition of Bengal in 1905. Lord Curzon – the then Viceroy of India – had split the largely Muslim populated eastern areas of Bengal from the largely Hindu populated western areas. It was a manifestation of British colonialism’s ‘Divide and Rule’ policy. In response, Indian nationalists boycotted British goods and institutions, holding meetings and processions, forming committees, and applying diplomatic pressure. As an allegorical representation of the nation, this secular, inclusive symbol was meant to unite people across religions and regions in the freedom struggle.
In contrast, the version now being promoted by the RSS and its affiliates have reimagined Bharat Mata as a Hindu goddess figure, often depicted with regal attire, a saffron flag, and sometimes even with a lion – a clear signifier of Hindutva ideology. This imagery, with its overt religious undertones, departs from the original inclusive vision. It emphasises Hindu nationalist identity and is a symbol of exclusionary politics. This transformation is not just aesthetic but ideological; it seeks to redefine Indian nationalism in the narrow and sectarian terms of majoritarian communalism. It is in stark contrast with the pluralistic spirit of the Indian Constitution.
RAJ BHAVAN AS RSS OUTPOST
The current controversy is not an isolated incident. Successive governors in Kerala, appointed by the BJP led union governments, have increasingly acted as political agents rather than as non-partisan constitutional authorities. Misusing their chancellorship – a statutory post – Sangh Parivar nominees have been repeatedly appointed to various positions and committees in Kerala’s universities. Even the democratic functioning of Senates and Syndicates is sought to be disrupted. The LDF government had to amend relevant statutes to ensure that the state government can effectively administer and qualitatively improve the higher educational institutions they fund. But, assent was denied.
Against the backdrop of the display of the RSS-style Bharat Mata portrait at official functions, and the governor’s insistence on its presence, editorials in Deshabhimani have criticised the Raj Bhavan for being turned into an ‘RSS shakha’, warning that such acts are blatant violations of constitutional norms. Ministers from the LDF, including CPI(M)’s V Sivankutty and CPI’s P Prasad, have boycotted events in protest. Subsequent to the initial protests, the Raj Bhavan had hinted that they would refrain from using this image and mandating the lighting of lamp in front of it during official functions. However, now they have done a complete U-turn. It needs to be seen as part of a series of wilful interventions that seek to undermine the elected state government’s authority.
Kerala is not alone. Across India, governors in opposition-ruled states have increasingly become instruments for the BJP to create administrative hurdles. Delays in granting assent to bills, misuse of statutory authority to intervene in state universities, public criticism of state governments, and overt alignment with the political agenda of the BJP-RSS combine, have become common in opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Punjab. Even in Delhi, this was the case till the recent Assembly elections which brought BJP back to power. Kerala and Tamil Nadu were even forced to approach the Supreme Court as Governors of both states had indefinitely withheld assent to several bills passed by their respective Assemblies.
SUPREME COURT VERDICT
The Supreme Court’s recent landmark verdict in the case filed by Tamil Nadu has set clear limits on the governor’s powers, declaring that indefinite delays in granting assent to bills are illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The Court has laid down strict timelines – one month to send a bill to the president, three months to return a bill without assent, and one month to assent to a bill re-passed by the Assembly – making it clear that the governor’s discretion is subject to judicial review.
This judgment is a significant victory for federalism and democratic governance, reaffirming the primacy of elected legislatures over unelected constitutional appointees. The LDF government has urged the Supreme Court to apply this precedent to its own disputes with the governor, underlining that constitutional offices cannot be misused to stall legislative processes. However, the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court, highlight the ongoing constitutional tussle. It reflects the BJP’s authoritarian stance and its contempt for the principles of federalism.
If the union government is refusing to respect the will of state legislatures, their representatives – governors – are refusing to adhere to the advice of the state governments, though they are constitutionally mandated to do so. In the midst of this anti-constitutional high handedness, the LDF government’s response to the Bharat Mata controversy in Kerala exemplifies its commitment to secularism – a basic tenet of the Indian Constitution. By refusing to participate in events that promote RSS imagery, and by mobilising public protests, the Left has drawn a clear line between constitutional nationalism – with secularism as its hallmark, and sectarian symbolism – with communalism as its driving force. The CPI(M) has consistently argued that the true spirit of Indian nationalism is embodied in the values of pluralism, equality, and social justice. As the battle to safeguard India’s Constitution intensifies, Kerala’s experience is a reminder that the defence of secularism requires both principled leadership and mass mobilisation. The LDF government’s stand is a beacon for all those who seek to uphold the idea of India as a diverse, inclusive, and democratic nation.
