Mehta traced the evolution of Lord Ram from a "Maryada Purushottam"—a figure of ethical conduct—to a central civilizational symbol around which a new politics of memory is being constructed. He noted that the recent consecration of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple has been framed by political leadership as a moment as significant as India's independence, effectively casting the state as the protector and expression of a singular cultural heritage.
This transformation, he argued, relies on a "recasting of the past" that views history through three primary ruptures: the Muslim era, British colonialism, and Nehruvian secularism. In this new narrative, the state's legitimacy is derived from its ability to "rectify" these ruptures and reclaim a lost civilizational essence.
The lecture highlighted a global trend toward this "civilizational state" model, citing similar movements in China, Russia, Turkey, and even the "Judeo-Christian" rhetoric in the West. Mehta cautioned that while this ideology claims to protect culture, it often becomes a "colonizer of religion," turning faith into an instrument of power and violence. He described Hindutva as the "biggest attack on religion" because it shrinks universal spiritual codes into a rigid ethnic framework. Unlike the pluralism championed by figures like Nehru or the commingling of cultures envisioned by Dara Shikoh, the current project asserts a singular identity that Mehta believes inherently undermines the shared, equal status of citizenship.
Addressing the psychological and political appeal of this shift, Mehta observed that liberal democracy appears less attractive to many because the civilizational state offers a sense of "authentic" legitimacy. He noted that the current popular mandate for the BJP is often viewed not just as a political victory but as a civilizational necessity, where any challenge to the ruling order is branded a threat to the civilization itself. This leads to an authoritarian paradox: the state seeks to defend the past while using it as a tool to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
Differing with those who consider the BJP more casteist and other political establishment, Mehta warned against underestimating the political capacity of Hindutva. He noted that the movement has shown a remarkable ability to co-opt and include Dalit and Bahujan communities, suggesting it is a mistake to view it as a purely Brahminical enterprise. He argued, compared with the BJP, the Congress has been no less Brahmanical.
Comments