The whole world once again saw the anti-constitutional face of Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav. In Tamil Nadu, when the court gave Hindus the right to worship, light lamps and conduct religious activities, this decision was not in favor or against any political party, but it was a victory of the eternal tradition and freedom provided under the Constitution. This was the victory of that India, where faith is not considered a crime. But this decision made Akhilesh Yadav and his ideological allies the most uncomfortable. The same leader who is seen waving the Constitution book on every stage was seen standing against the judicial decision. Akhilesh Yadav has never been a lover of the Constitution, he has only been a leader who used it as per his need. For them the Constitution is not a principle but a political shield, which is sometimes raised like a slogan and sometimes rejected.
The case of Tamil Nadu is no exception to this truth, but is the latest example of Akhilesh Yadav's old and established thinking. Akhilesh Yadav found this decision unacceptable because this time the Constitution stood against his politics. Akhilesh Yadav, who used to praise the Constitution, is today against the same Constitution and is not hesitating to make even a very serious process like impeachment against the judge giving a decision a political weapon. This behavior is not a proof of any constitutional concern, but of opposition and discomfort towards the Constitution which rises above power, votes and ideological convenience and takes independent decisions. The truth is that the leader who accepts the Constitution only when he speaks in its interest, is not its protector but is its biggest opportunistic opponent and the entire politics of Akhilesh Yadav is a document of this opportunism.
The recent incidents related to Tamil Nadu have once again put the politics of Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on the test of the Constitution, where his restlessness and his selective silence reveal a lot. This reaction is not limited to a simple legal disagreement, but indicates a deep ideological rejection of the independent interpretation of the Constitution and the autonomy of the judiciary. The haste to use an extremely serious and extraordinary constitutional process like impeachment as a political weapon makes it clear that the problem lies neither with the judicial process nor with the constitutional provisions, but with the decision which was given in accordance with the basic spirit of the Constitution. The question is not whether the decision was right or wrong, the real question is whether Akhilesh Yadav accepts the Constitution which takes independent decisions beyond power or ideological convenience?
Today the Hindu society of the country is asking the question whether Akhilesh Yadav accepts the same justice which attacks Sanatan? Do they find those decisions comfortable in which faith is limited, temples are put into controversy and religious traditions are viewed with suspicion? If it is not so, then why was there such a strong reaction when Hindus got the right to worship and light lamps? This reaction is not actually against justice, but indicates discomfort with the existence of Sanatan.
The incident in Tamil Nadu is no exception. This pattern of uneasiness towards Sanatan has been seen again and again in Uttar Pradesh. The 84 Kos Parikrama associated with Ayodhya is not just a religious journey, but a living tradition of devotion to Ram. Under socialist rule, an attempt was made to stop this parikrama, as if faith was a crime. Was this an administrative decision or a sign of uneasiness with Sanatan?
Repeated ban on the Kanwar Yatra in the month of Shravan, change of route, lathi charge and insults – all this happened during the time of the government which called itself the biggest contractor of secularism. The question is whether the faith of Shiva devotees should have been crushed in the name of law and order?
Religious events on festivals like Krishna Janmashtami were viewed with suspicion and there was reluctance to allow them. Did Lord Krishna also find socialist politics inconvenient? And that too when one claims to be a symbol of Yadukul pride. On the other hand, administrative leniency was seen on public violence, display of weapons and orgies during Moharram. Not only this, silence was maintained where action should have been taken. The question is why was the law not the same for everyone?
Firing of bullets on kar sevaks in Ayodhya was not a political mistake, rather it was a direct attack on Sanatan faith. This incident of crushing Ram Bhakti is still recorded as a deep wound in the memory of Hindu society. In riots like Sambhal and Muzaffarnagar, Hindu society was made the victim not of justice but of political balance. The tears of the victims became secondary to the vote bank. Instead of taking strict action against the culprits, the politics of appeasement prevailed.
Sanatan is not just a method of worship, but it is the soul of India. The politics which questions the rights of Sanatan, actually challenges the cultural consciousness of this country. But Akhilesh Yadav's politics has repeatedly indicated that Sanatan is acceptable in his agenda only as long as it suits the vote bank. As Sanatan stands up for his rights, he starts finding them inconvenient.
The same ideological discomfort is clearly visible in the case of death of innocent children due to cough syrup made in Tamil Nadu. But the difference is that silence was maintained there. The death of children due to poisonous cough syrup was not an administrative mistake, but a horrific crime. Still, Akhilesh Yadav's silence shows that where Sanatan is attacked, there is noise and where political friends are held accountable, there is silence.
It is no coincidence that assembly elections are round the corner in Tamil Nadu. In such a situation, politics can be done on the decision in favor of Sanatan, but raising questions on poisonous cough syrup can spoil the equation of alliance and friendship. This is the reason why this double standard of aggression on the issue of Sanatan and silence on the issue of innocents has become a permanent character of Akhilesh Yadav's politics.
Today, the conscious Hindu society of the country has well understood who stands with Sanatan and who only uses his name. This political hypocrisy of ignoring the attack on Sanatan, being restless with the judicial decisions on his rights and then invoking the Constitution can no longer be hidden.
The truth is that actions speak louder than words and the developments in Tamil Nadu have made it clear that when it comes to Sanatan, Akhilesh Yadav's politics appears uncomfortable, hostile and opportunistic. Silence is also a statement, but on the question of Sanatan it is not silence but appears to be transformed into protest.