Why the UPA Invented the Term “Saffron Terror”?

The term “saffron terror” emerged during the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, primarily under the leadership of the Congress Party. This term was used to describe alleged acts of terrorism carried out by individuals linked to Hindu nationalist groups, often associated with the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) or its affiliates. However, over the years, the phrase has been intensely debated, with several acquittals in related cases and strong arguments suggesting that it was a politically motivated construct rather than a genuine national security threat. This article explores why the UPA coined the term, how it was propagated, and what implications it had on India’s political and security environment.

The Political Need to Create a Counter-Narrative

By the mid-2000s, India had experienced a series of deadly terrorist attacks, many of which were linked to Islamic terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and the Indian Mujahideen (IM). These attacks, including the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, the 2008 Delhi blasts, and the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, caused significant public outrage and exposed weaknesses in the UPA’s internal security mechanisms.

Under growing criticism, the UPA government needed a counter-narrative. The idea of “Hindu terrorism” or “saffron terror” served that purpose. It balanced the narrative, suggesting that terrorism was not confined to one religion or ideology, and that there were extremist elements within Hindu groups as well. This allowed the UPA to present itself as ideologically neutral and secular.

Coining and Popularizing the Term

The term “saffron terror” was publicly used by P. Chidambaram, the then Home Minister, in 2010 during an intelligence conference. It received further traction due to repeated usage by Digvijaya Singh, a senior Congress leader, who often claimed that Hindu extremist elements were responsible for certain blasts that were initially blamed on Islamist outfits.

This was unprecedented in Indian political discourse. Until then, terrorism in India was largely viewed through the lens of cross-border Islamic extremism or left-wing insurgency (Naxalism). Introducing a third ideological category, one associated with saffron—the color representing Hinduism and the RSS—had deep political implications.

The Role of Certain Investigations

The “saffron terror” narrative gained traction during the investigation of certain bomb blasts:

  • Malegaon Blasts (2006 & 2008): While the 2006 blasts were initially attributed to Islamic groups, the 2008 blasts led to the arrest of individuals like Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, both allegedly linked to Hindu nationalist groups.
  • Samjhauta Express Bombing (2007): Initially suspected to be the work of Pakistan-based terror groups, the investigation later shifted focus toward Hindu suspects. However, in 2019, a special NIA court acquitted all accused due to lack of evidence.
  • Ajmer Dargah and Mecca Masjid Blasts: These were also used to support the narrative of Hindu radicalism, though key accused were later discharged or acquitted.

In many of these cases, the accused spent years in jail, but the lack of solid evidence and eventual acquittals led many to believe that these cases were influenced by political agendas rather than genuine investigative findings.

Aimed at Targeting the RSS and BJP

The RSS and BJP have always been ideologically opposed to the Congress and its brand of Nehruvian secularism. By linking the RSS and affiliated groups to terrorism, the Congress-led UPA sought to delegitimize their nationalist narrative. This strategy served multiple political objectives:

  1. Equating Hindutva with extremism, similar to how global discourse equates radical Islam with terrorism.
  2. Undermining the moral authority of the BJP, which often campaigns on issues of national security and patriotism.
  3. Discrediting grassroots Hindu organizations, many of which run schools, service institutions, and social work networks.

By pushing the “saffron terror” narrative, the UPA could portray the BJP and RSS as dangerous, thus justifying legal action and surveillance against them.

Judicial Rejections and Collapse of the Narrative

In almost all high-profile cases related to alleged “saffron terror,” the accused have either been acquitted or the cases have collapsed due to lack of evidence. For example:

  • In the Malegaon case, Sadhvi Pragya and Lt. Col. Purohit were granted bail after long incarcerations.
  • In the Samjhauta Express case, the NIA court acquitted all accused and even questioned the credibility of the evidence.

The judiciary’s stance in these cases raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the “saffron terror” theory. Many commentators, including former intelligence officers, argued that these cases appeared manufactured or politically manipulated, and were used to target ideological opponents.

National Security Concerns and Misplaced Priorities

Critics of the UPA argue that the excessive focus on so-called “saffron terror” came at the cost of tackling real threats. While the government diverted resources and attention toward Hindu groups, cross-border terrorist networks continued to flourish. This misallocation of priorities may have:

  • Weakened counter-terror operations.
  • Created mistrust within intelligence agencies.
  • Demoralized officers who felt pressured to deliver politically convenient narratives.

Such politicization of national security was not only dangerous but also left India vulnerable to future attacks.

Public Reaction and Political Backlash

The term “saffron terror” was never widely accepted by the Indian public. A large section of the population saw it as an insult to Hinduism, which has traditionally been associated with peace and pluralism. The backlash intensified after acquittals in these cases, with many Indians viewing the accused as victims of a political witch-hunt.

Moreover, when the BJP came to power in 2014, they used the UPA’s saffron terror narrative to highlight the Congress’s alleged anti-Hindu bias. This narrative played a significant role in galvanizing Hindu voters and consolidating BJP’s political base.

Conclusion

The invention and propagation of the term “saffron terror” by the UPA government appears, in hindsight, to be a politically driven attempt to create a false equivalence between Islamist terrorism and isolated incidents involving Hindu individuals. With no convictions in major related cases and widespread acquittals, the credibility of the term has collapsed.

Rather than strengthening India’s internal security framework, this narrative arguably undermined investigative integrity, divided public opinion, and polarized national discourse. It serves as a reminder of the dangers of politicizing terrorism and using national security issues as tools for ideological warfare.

Comments are closed.