It has become a common trend for right-wing groups to label anyone who criticises the ruling party or its ideological mentor as "anti-national." Opposition leaders are branded anti-national when they raise questions in Parliament to hold the government accountable. While it is evident that many democratic institutions have been influenced or even captured by Sangh Parivar organisations, those who point out these truths are often vilified as anti-national. An army of social media agents is deployed to attack the critics of the government and of the Sangh Parivar, labelling and shaming them under this pejorative term.

According to Wikipedia, "anti-national" is a pejorative label. It is a political catchphrase widely used during Narendra Modi's prime ministership, especially in media discourse. It implies an anti-Indian sentiment in an Indian citizen, suggesting anti-government or seditious behaviour. However, there is no official or legal definition of "anti-national" in Indian statutes.

It was reported in the media that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat claimed, quoting the late President Pranab Mukherjee, that if there had been no "ghar wapsi" (reconversion) of a section of the Adivasis, "they would have turned anti-national." This remark provoked widespread criticism.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI) strongly objected to Bhagwat's reported statement, saying, "Fabricated personal conversation being attributed to a former president of India and its posthumous publication with the vested interest of an organisation with questionable credibility raises a grave issue of national importance. Is it not the violent ghar wapsi program of VHP and other similar organisations, curtailing the exercise of freedom of conscience of economically deprived tribals, the real anti-national activity?"

The list of individuals and groups labelled anti-nationals by BJP governments is extensive. It includes farmers who protested against the controversial farm laws passed by the government (later withdrawn), journalists and editors critical of the BJP governments, university students protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) under the so-called "tukde-tukde gang," NGOs working on environmental and human rights issues, stand-up comedians like Munawar Faruqui and Kunal Kamra, and academics such as Hany Babu MT and the late GN Saibaba.

Many activists have been detained preventively to stop them from organising protests. Critics of the government have been accused of sedition, criminal defamation, or terrorism. Authorities have used financial audits and investigations against rights groups and media organisations and have employed arbitrary measures, such as preventing individuals from travelling abroad to share their views internationally.

Cancellation of Foreign Contribution Registration (FCR) is another tool used to suppress NGOs critical of government policies related to human rights and environmental protection. Over the past year, more than 100 NGOs, including the Centre for Policy Research, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust (led by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi), and Oxfam India, have lost their FCRA licenses due to alleged misuse of foreign grants.

In this context, it is pertinent to ask: Who is truly anti-national? Criticising the government and raising relevant questions is not an anti-national act. Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy, and holding the government accountable is essential to its functioning.

In a democracy, the opposition plays a critical role in ensuring government accountability by asking relevant questions. The people's voice reaches the government through the media, political opposition, and civil society organisations. When these voices are stifled, democracy risks degenerating into autocracy.

The most harmful anti-national actions are those that weaponise communalism. Using religion to polarise society and instigate violence is unequivocally anti-national. Those who engage in hate speech against specific communities or spread divisive messages that lead to social conflict fall into this category. Terrorists and individuals who resort to violence, even for a just cause, are also anti-national because the ends do not justify the means.

Sonia Gandhi, former Congress Party chief, articulated this sentiment in an article for The Telegraph on BR Ambedkar's birth anniversary. She wrote, "All those who misuse power to divide Indians against each other in the name of religion, caste, region, language, or gender are anti-national." Gandhi accused the current regime of misusing and undermining constitutional institutions, weakening the pillars of liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice. She emphasised that liberty is "threatened" when laws are misused to harass individuals rather than protect their rights, and equality is "assaulted" through preferential treatment of favoured allies.

The Constitution of India forms the very foundation of the nation. Anyone who violates the Constitution, whether a state or non-state actor, can be considered anti-national. Efforts to undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are acts of betrayal against the nation.
The core values enshrined in the preamble of the Indian Constitution include Socialist and Secular Democracy, Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. These principles aim to ensure the dignity of individuals and the unity and integrity of the nation. Any individual or entity acting against these values, regardless of their position or authority, can be deemed anti-national.

According to the Basic Structure Doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), fundamental features of the Constitution—such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law—cannot be amended by Parliament. The Court also affirmed that judicial review is integral to the Constitution's basic structure. Any attempt to tamper with these principles is an anti-national act.

Even without amending the Constitution, governments can interfere with its fundamental features. For instance, the undue interference of governors appointed by the central government in state governance undermines federalism and can thus be classified as anti-national.
The rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy and a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution.

When members of certain organisations take the law into their own hands with impunity, such as lynching individuals under the pretext of cow protection, it is an anti-national act. According to an Al Jazeera report dated September 6, 2024, since Modi secured a third consecutive term, nearly half a dozen cases of cow-related lynchings have been reported across India. Several homes have been demolished on suspicion that the Muslim residents stored beef in their refrigerators. In one horrific incident, an elderly Muslim man was brutally beaten on a train over suspicions of carrying beef. A viral video showed the traumatised man being abused as others watched or filmed the attack.

The RSS-BJP narrative of "anti-national" is inconsistent with the Indian Constitution. Instead, it appears to align with the ideology of Hindutva. The Sangh Parivar's goal is to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra, where Muslims and Christians would be treated as second-class citizens, as outlined in MS Golwalkar's We, or Our Nationhood Defined. Golwalkar, revered by the RSS, labelled Muslims, Christians, and Communists as internal threats to the Hindu nation (Bunch of Thoughts). He rejected democracy for granting too much freedom to individuals and dismissed Communism as a menace.

Since the Hindutva ideology does not prioritise democracy, any criticism of the BJP government or its ideological mentor is branded anti-national. Rule of law, human rights, fundamental rights, liberty, equality, and fraternity are not priorities for a Hindu Rashtra. Consequently, Hindutva proponents naturally brand human rights defenders, advocates of free speech, environmental activists, and promoters of interfaith harmony as anti-national.

To counter this narrative, Indian constitutional values, as enshrined in the preamble, must be upheld and practised. The CBCI's response to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's statement, suggesting Adivasis would have turned anti-national without ghar wapsi, is commendable. However, it is not enough. The Catholic Church must join hands with all Indians committed to preserving constitutional values to safeguard pluralistic democracy and challenge the distorted and destructive "anti-national" narrative.