Subject: Selective Secularism, Public Neutrality, and the Concerns of Christians in
Nagaland
Dear NBCC,
I write this letter with deep respect for the role of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council in safeguarding the moral, social, and spiritual concerns of the people of Nagaland.
Nagaland today is witnessing a very strange form of what many citizens now describe as “selective secularism.” The government suddenly becomes extremely serious about religious stickers, banners, and visible expressions of faith in public spaces, as though the greatest threat to public order is a small cross behind a taxi mirror. Yet the same political leaders who speak about neutrality openly chant slogans such as “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” on public and political platforms without hesitation.
This has created genuine confusion among ordinary Christians. If secularism truly means neutrality, then neutrality must apply equally to everyone — not only to common citizens. A democratic government cannot ask people to hide visible symbols of their faith while politicians themselves freely display ideological or religious symbolism through microphones, rallies, and official stages.
Kindly examine the ideological roots of such slogans. In the book "Bunch of Thoughts" by MS Golwalkar (ex-RSS chief), ‘Bharat’ is described not merely as a geographical territory but as a sacred civilizational concept, referred to as the mother of Hindus. For many Christians, whose faith teaches worship of God alone, slogans linked to the sacred personification of the nation can naturally create discomfort when repeatedly promoted in political gatherings and public events.
Patriotism is not the issue. The issue is consistency and constitutional principle.
If the government can regulate religious stickers and banners in the name of maintaining public neutrality, then the same principle should logically apply to ideological slogan chanting by politicians. Otherwise, secularism begins to look less like a constitutional value and more like a selective rule imposed only on ordinary citizens while leaders enjoy exemption.
One cannot remove stickers from vehicles while permitting ideological slogan performances at rallies and official functions. If public neutrality is genuinely important, then churches and civil society also have every democratic right to question whether slogans rooted in Hindu nationalist thought should be openly promoted in a Christian majority state like Nagaland.
Perhaps instead of importing slogans tied to ideological nationalism, our leaders should respect and promote expressions rooted in the history, identity, and struggles of the Naga people themselves.
“Hail Kuknalim” is not merely a slogan; it carries the spirit of courage, unity, resilience, and the collective aspiration of the Nagas. Unlike slogans associated with religious majoritarianism, it belongs to the shared historical and cultural consciousness of the people of Nagaland irrespective of tribe or denomination.
A secular state cannot function by banning one symbol while celebrating another. Either neutrality applies equally to all, or the public will naturally begin to question whether secularism is being applied selectively — strict for citizens, flexible for politicians.
In this regard, I humbly urge the NBCC to reflect upon this growing concern and to speak firmly and wisely on the principles of equality, fairness, religious freedom, and constitutional consistency in public life.
Yours sincerely,
Zato Sumi, Dimapur
