WHERE THE MIND IS WITHOUT FEAR
Constitution Day and the Distorted Legacy of Power
Introduction: A Day That Reveals the Truth
Constitution Day should renew our faith in the values that hold the republic together. It should remind us of a nation imagined through justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It should return us to the dream of freedom where the mind is without fear and knowledge is free. Instead, it exposes a deep contradiction. Those who celebrate the Constitution with loud speeches belong to an ideological tradition that rejected it from the very beginning. The louder the praise, the greater the dishonesty. This is the paradox of our political moment.
The Constitution as the Republic’s Moral Foundation
The Constitution is not just a legal text. It is a moral foundation. It protects the citizen from the power of the state. It ensures that birth does not define destiny. It treats every human being with dignity. It restrains authority through principles, not favour. It imagines a nation where the poorest person stands equal before law with the most powerful.
But the present climate reveals how far the republic has drifted from this foundation. Fear is used as a method of rule. Propaganda replaces knowledge. Institutions bend before power. Social divisions widen while those meant to govern speak of unity. A document built on equality struggles to survive under those who treat it as a ceremonial object rather than a governing discipline.
The Ideological Roots of the Crisis
To understand the erosion of constitutional values today, one must confront the ideological foundation of the ruling political ecosystem. The present political structure draws its intellectual influence from the writings and speeches of M S Golwalkar, the most important ideologue of the organisation that shapes their worldview.
Golwalkar’s rejection of the Constitution was not vague or diplomatic. It was clear, structured and unapologetic. He argued that the Constitution had nothing Indian in it. He complained that it borrowed democratic ideas from many countries. He criticised the Constituent Assembly for choosing a modern republican model instead of drawing from ancient social codes.
He said openly that India did not need a modern Constitution. He insisted that the nation should have accepted ancient law books as its governing framework. Among these he pointed to Manusmriti as an ideal source of law. This was the same text that endorsed caste hierarchy and social inequality. Ambedkar had torn it publicly to reject its oppressive vision. Golwalkar, in contrast, praised it as an authentic foundation for India.
This was not a difference of opinion. It was a direct conflict between the inclusive republic the Constitution created and the cultural state Golwalkar imagined.
Golwalkar’s Rejection of Democracy
Golwalkar repeatedly expressed distrust toward democracy. He believed that democratic structures were not suited to the Indian character. He criticised universal equality, calling it artificial. He believed in hierarchy as a natural social order.
This view goes against the core of the Constitution, which declares that every citizen stands equal before the law regardless of caste, religion or culture. Where the Constitution sees a political community, Golwalkar saw a cultural collective. Where the Constitution sees citizens, Golwalkar saw subjects of a cultural identity. Where the Constitution promotes fraternity across differences, Golwalkar emphasised uniformity through cultural dominance.
This ideological conflict still shapes the political culture of today.
The Refusal to Honour National Symbols
The organisation influenced by Golwalkar refused for decades to hoist the national flag at its headquarters. They claimed the tricolour did not reflect their cultural view of the nation. Only after public pressure did they raise it.
This refusal was not trivial. It revealed a deeper discomfort with the inclusive national identity the Constitution created. A flag that represents unity across communities did not suit an ideology built on cultural singularity. A republic built on equality did not fit their vision of ancient hierarchy.
The Present Government and the Performance of Constitutional Loyalty
Today the government that draws strength from this ideological tradition speaks about the Constitution with great emotion. They organise events. They praise Ambedkar. They quote constitutional verses. Yet every institutional action tells a different story.
Dissent is criminalised.
Agencies are weaponised.
Media is pressured.
Universities are censored.
Federal balance is weakened.
Minority rights are eroded.
Public expression is monitored through fear.
This is not constitutional governance. It is governance wearing constitutional clothing.
A government that truly believes in the Constitution does not need propaganda to show loyalty. Its actions reflect loyalty. Its institutions reflect independence. Its society reflects harmony. But today the Constitution is celebrated in speeches and violated in practice.
Erosion of Institutions and the Rise of Fear
The Constitution survives not because it is written. It survives because institutions protect it. Today those institutions stand weakened. Investigative bodies behave like political tools. Public universities fear disapproval from authority. Independent journalism struggles to breathe under pressure. The judiciary carries the burden of delay and political shadow.
Fear has become the unspoken language of governance. Citizens fear expressing their thoughts. Activists fear legal threats. Journalists fear targeted cases. Students fear disciplinary action. When fear governs society, the dream of constitutional liberty collapses.
Tagore’s Vision and the Republic’s Conscience
Tagore’s lines offer a moral mirror to the republic. He imagined a nation without fear, without narrow divisions, without falsehood. The Constitution tried to build that nation. Today the distance between Tagore’s vision and reality grows wider. Fear has replaced courage. Propaganda has replaced knowledge. Divisions have replaced unity.
Tagore spoke from the depth of truth. The question today is whether citizens can still speak from that depth.
The People as the Final Defenders of the Republic
Governments may change. Ideologies may shift. Institutions may weaken. But the Constitution survives only if citizens protect it. The people are the final guardians of the republic. They hold the moral responsibility to challenge injustice, defend liberty and demand accountability.
When institutions fail, the people must rise with conscience. The republic belongs to them, not to those who rule temporarily.
Conclusion: Constitution Day as a Call for Courage
Constitution Day should not be a ritual. It should be a reminder that the republic stands at a turning point. The conflict today is not between political parties. It is between constitutional morality and authoritarian desire. Between a nation built on equality and a nation shaped by hierarchy. Between a future of freedom and a future of fear.
The Constitution cannot protect itself. Only citizens can. Only truth can. Only moral courage can.
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law, politics and society. His writings blend legal insight with social critique and aim to provoke reflection on power, justice and public conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment