Delhi Metro Wrapped in Guru Tegh Bahadur’s Teachings: A Cultural Tribute or Political Rebranding?

The delhi Metro has recently been covered end-to-end with visuals and teachings of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the 9th Sikh Guru, known for resisting forced conversion under Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. The initiative—executed under the BJP-led central government which administers the delhi Metro rail Corporation (DMRC)—has sparked debate. Supporters call it a long-overdue cultural honour; critics see a political messaging strategy masked as heritage promotion.
This editorial unpacks the subtle political incentives, historical framing, and institutional gaps behind the move.

What Actually Happened

The delhi Metro, one of India’s busiest public transport networks, has rolled out a full-scale thematic installation across multiple lines featuring quotes, portraits, and historical descriptions of Guru Tegh Bahadur’s martyrdom. The panels emphasise his refusal to convert to islam and the brutality inflicted upon his children by Aurangzeb.

This visual narrative is now present across stations and inside coaches, effectively turning the metro into a moving museum of Sikh resistance and sacrifice.

What makes the move significant is not just the content, but the timing, design scale, and selective focus—coming amid rising communal tensions and competitive religious symbolism ahead of the 2026 assembly elections.

Political Context: A Cultural Tribute with Electoral Geometry

The bjp has long attempted to build alliances with Sikh voters, particularly after the farmer protests strained the party’s relationship with punjab and parts of Delhi’s Sikh community. The metro display, on the surface a cultural tribute, doubles as a political reclamation project.

Three political layers stand out:

1. Rebranding Mughal History:
   The chosen narrative—Aurangzeb’s oppression, Guru Tegh Bahadur’s sacrifice—is politically convenient. It aligns with the BJP’s national project of reframing history into a binary of “Hindu–Sikh victims vs. Muslim oppressors,” a narrative that sharpens electoral polarisation.

2. Countering AAP’s delhi Dominance:
   By placing large-scale cultural messaging across the metro, the Centre bypasses AAP’s influence over Delhi’s voters. Because the DMRC falls under the central government, this becomes a direct communication channel that the state government cannot block.

3. The Symbolic Contrast:
   The caption circulating widely—“Not Rajiv Gandhi, not sonia gandhi, not smiling Mahatma, not Kejriwal, but Guru Tegh Bahadur”—captures a deeper strategy:
   positioning bjp as the custodian of “real indian heritage,” implicitly framing others as opportunistic or secularly evasive.

Bureaucratic & Institutional Failures: Who Approved What, and How Transparent Was It?

One major question remains unanswered: What was the process of approving this campaign?

• Was a tender issued?

• Was it classified as an advertisement, a cultural project, or a government awareness initiative?

• What budget was allocated?

• Which departments approved the content, and with what legal oversight?

DMRC has previously been questioned for lack of transparency in advertising contracts, especially long-term station branding deals. If this installation was funded through public money, the absence of procedural clarity is an institutional failure in itself.

Even if funded through CSR or private partnership, DMRC is obligated to disclose details—something mainstream media rarely demands.

Economic Motivations: The Revenue Question

Delhi Metro generates substantial revenue through advertising. A full-coach takeover of this scale typically costs crores annually if rented by a private brand.

If the government executed the campaign:

• Was revenue forgone in favour of cultural messaging?

• If yes, what is the economic rationale for using public transport space for ideological communication rather than revenue generation?

Alternatively, if a private organisation sponsored the installation, it raises a different concern:

• Which organisation?

• What incentives were offered in return?

In both scenarios, the financial opacity benefits political actors, not taxpayers.

Caste, Class & Society: Who Is This Messaging Really For?

The delhi Metro transports nearly 70 lakh riders daily—mostly students, lower-middle-class workers, and office-goers. This demographic becomes a captive audience for cultural-political messaging.

But the story of Guru Tegh Bahadur is not merely a Hindu–Sikh tale. It is a story of religious freedom, state violence, and minority rights.

The issue is not honouring the Guru—something the Sikh community has always demanded more of from successive governments. The concern lies in how the story is narrated:

• The BJP’s framing emphasises Aurangzeb’s brutality, but

• sidesteps the Guru’s universal message of protecting the oppressed—irrespective of religion.

This selective retelling transforms a historical martyrdom into a modern-day majoritarian talking point, reshaping public consciousness subtly but powerfully.

What Mainstream media Ignored

Mainstream coverage showed the visuals but avoided key questions:

Why now?
Why was this not done during the 400th birth anniversary in 2021 when the government had a dedicated committee?

Why only Guru Tegh Bahadur?
If public transport is now a medium for historical education, why not also highlight:

• Ambedkar’s critique of state power

• Bhagat Singh’s anti-authoritarian ideas

• Savitribai Phule’s fight for women’s education

• Periyar’s rationalism

• Tribal freedom fighters like Birsa Munda

• The selectivity is political, not cultural.
• 
  
• Is public space becoming ideological territory?
  This is an important democratic concern, but one mainstream media avoids due to political sensitivities.

Global Comparisons: When States Use Public Transit as Narrative Space

Across the world, governments have used public transport to push cultural or ideological messaging:

• China: subway propaganda promoting “Xi jinping Thought”

• Turkey: Ottoman nostalgia visuals supporting Erdoğan’s neo-Ottomanism

• Russia: Metro installations glorifying WWII narratives tied to Putin’s nationalism

• Singapore: soft-power campaigns projecting harmony and multicultural discipline

Delhi’s metro installation fits into the same global trend: public transport as a tool of political storytelling.

The danger is not the content itself, but its potential as a precedent.

Long-Term Implications: Redefining Public Space, Redefining Memory

If this becomes standard practice, the consequences may be far-reaching:

Public spaces will increasingly reflect political power, not collective heritage.

Historical narratives will be selectively curated to suit electoral needs.

The line between cultural tribute and political messaging will dissolve, normalising government propaganda.

Minority communities may feel their histories are being reinterpreted, appropriated, or weaponised for majoritarian narratives.

Taxpayer-funded institutions like DMRC may become tools of political branding, compromising neutrality.

India’s democracy thrives on shared spaces that belong to all—metro stations, hospitals, roads, schools.
Turning these into arenas of selective ideological influence is a quiet but significant shift.

If the government can rewrite public space using history today, what prevents future governments from rewriting history itself in those very spaces tomorrow?