Indianisation or Indoctrination? The Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal and the Great Educational Contradiction

 

Education is never neutral. Every civilisation understands that whoever shapes education ultimately shapes the future. Empires have always rewritten textbooks before they rewrote societies. Political movements have always recognised that if you can influence the classroom, you can influence generations. It is therefore no surprise that education has become one of the most fiercely contested spaces in contemporary India. At the centre of this ideological contest stands the Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal (BSM), an organisation associated with the larger RSS ecosystem that seeks to influence educational thought, curriculum and policy through what it calls the "Indianisation" of education.

The slogan sounds attractive. Who would oppose an education system rooted in India's own civilisation? Who would object to teaching students about Aryabhata, Sushruta, Panini, Chanakya, Kalidasa, the Upanishads, Buddhist philosophy or India's remarkable contributions to mathematics, astronomy, medicine and linguistics? Every nation has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to introduce its children to its own intellectual heritage. For decades, many scholars have argued that colonial education disproportionately celebrated European achievements while neglecting India's own traditions. Correcting that imbalance is not merely acceptable, it is necessary.

Yet, as someone who has observed the evolution of this movement over the years, I have come to believe that the debate is no longer about restoring balance. It is about controlling the narrative. The project of Indianisation, at least as articulated by many within the BSM ecosystem, increasingly appears less like an academic exercise and more like an ideological one. The concern is not that Indian civilisation is being taught. The concern is whether education is being transformed into a vehicle for a single political and cultural worldview.

The Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal presents itself as an organisation committed to educational reform. It advocates integrating Indian knowledge systems into mainstream education, promoting Sanskrit, revisiting historical narratives, encouraging research into traditional sciences and creating a curriculum that reflects India's civilisational ethos. On paper, these objectives sound constructive. However, every educational reform must be judged not by its slogans but by its consequences. The question is not whether Indian knowledge deserves respect. It undoubtedly does. The question is whether respect for Indian knowledge requires suspicion towards every other tradition of learning.

Civilisations do not become great by isolating themselves. They become great by absorbing ideas from everywhere and improving upon them. Nalanda was not celebrated because it shut its doors to foreign scholars. It became one of the world's greatest universities precisely because scholars from China, Korea, Tibet, Persia and Southeast Asia travelled thousands of kilometres to study there. Ancient India was intellectually confident because it welcomed debate. Philosophical schools challenged one another relentlessly. Buddhists debated Hindus. Mimamsakas challenged Vedantins. Materialists questioned spiritualists. Knowledge flourished because disagreement was encouraged rather than feared.

That spirit of fearless inquiry is the true legacy of Indian civilisation. Unfortunately, modern educational nationalism sometimes mistakes conformity for confidence.

One contradiction has particularly troubled me, and I write this not from newspaper reports or political propaganda but from my own experience. Over the years I have interacted with several individuals associated with the Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal and the broader ideological ecosystem that passionately advocates Indianisation. Many of them are my friends.

In those discussions, they speak passionately about freeing India from its colonial mindset. They argue that Indian education has been mentally enslaved by Western intellectual traditions. They insist that our universities must reject imported frameworks and instead build an education system rooted entirely in Indian civilisation. Listening to them, one would believe that the future of higher education lies almost exclusively within the boundaries of our own cultural tradition.

Yet my own experience has often revealed a striking contradiction.

I have personally seen some of these very friends proudly celebrate when their children secure admission to universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and other Western countries. They discuss international rankings, research opportunities, academic freedom, laboratories, innovation and global exposure with understandable pride. There is nothing wrong with that. Every parent naturally wants the very best opportunities for their children. If I had the means, I too would want my child to study wherever excellence exists.

My question is different.

If Indianisation is genuinely creating an educational system superior to the global institutions they frequently criticise, why does confidence in that system disappear when personal choices are made? Why is Indianisation preached for society while international education remains the aspiration for one's own family?

To me, this is not merely a contradiction. It is a profound commentary on the difference between ideology and conviction. Ideology is what we ask others to believe. Conviction is what we practise ourselves. An educational philosophy earns credibility when those who advocate it trust it with the future of their own children. When public speeches glorify self reliance but private aspirations continue to seek global universities, ordinary citizens are entitled to ask whether Indianisation is genuinely about educational excellence or whether it has become an instrument of political symbolism.

The irony is impossible to ignore. The very institutions often criticised as products of Western civilisation remain the benchmark against which success is privately measured. Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Stanford and countless other universities continue to attract ambitious Indian students from every political persuasion. This is not because Indians lack patriotism. It is because these institutions have earned reputations through research, academic freedom and intellectual excellence. Respect cannot be manufactured through slogans. It must be earned through scholarship.

Unfortunately, much of the present debate confuses cultural pride with intellectual superiority. Pride is important. Every civilisation should celebrate its achievements. But pride without evidence quickly becomes propaganda. A nation does not become intellectually stronger simply by declaring itself superior. It becomes stronger by producing better research, better universities, better scientists, better philosophers, better judges, better doctors and better citizens.

The deeper danger lies elsewhere.

Education slowly ceases to be about questioning and gradually becomes about affirming predetermined truths. History begins to serve politics rather than evidence. Universities begin to reward conformity rather than curiosity. Students become reluctant to question accepted narratives because questioning itself is portrayed as being anti national or anti cultural. Once that happens, education loses its soul.

A classroom should never become a recruiting ground for any ideology, whether left, right, religious or secular. Its purpose is to cultivate independent minds capable of evaluating competing ideas through evidence and reason. The greatest tribute we can pay to India's civilisation is not blind celebration but fearless examination. If ancient Indian achievements are genuinely extraordinary, they will survive the highest standards of academic scrutiny. They do not require political protection.

What India desperately needs today is not Indianisation versus Westernisation. That is a false choice. We need international excellence rooted in Indian confidence. We need students who can read the Upanishads and understand quantum mechanics, appreciate Kalidasa and Shakespeare, study Aryabhata and Einstein, admire Chanakya while critically engaging with Adam Smith, Ambedkar, Gandhi and modern constitutional thought. Knowledge has never recognised national borders. Only politics does.

The real crisis in Indian education is not that students read too much about Europe. The crisis is that millions of children still study without libraries, laboratories, trained teachers or meaningful opportunities for critical thinking. Universities struggle with inadequate funding, declining research output and bureaucratic interference. Teachers spend more time navigating administration than mentoring students. These are the problems that deserve national attention.

Changing textbook language without transforming educational quality is like repainting a crumbling building. It creates the illusion of reform while leaving the foundations untouched.

India has always been strongest when it remained intellectually open. The civilisation that gave the world the Upanishads also welcomed Buddhism, Jainism, Persian influences, Islamic scholarship, European science and modern constitutional democracy. Our civilisation survived because it absorbed, adapted and evolved. It never feared knowledge from elsewhere.

Perhaps that is the greatest lesson of Indian civilisation itself. Confidence does not require isolation. Strength does not require censorship. Patriotism does not require intellectual uniformity.

The future of Indian education will not be determined by how loudly we proclaim our greatness. It will be determined by whether our universities become places where every idea may be questioned, every claim tested and every student encouraged to think freely. Nations that fear questions eventually stop producing answers.

India deserves an education system that prepares young people not merely to repeat slogans but to compete with the finest minds anywhere in the world. Our civilisation is far too rich to be reduced to ideology and far too confident to fear open inquiry.

Indianisation should mean bringing India's best ideas to the world. It should never mean closing India's windows to the world.

That is the difference between education and indoctrination.

About the Author

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.

© Siddhartha Shankar Mishra

 

Twelve Years of Publicity, Not Performance

 

When Governance Becomes a Spectacle

For more than a decade, India has been told that it is witnessing an era of “historic transformation.” Every billboard, television screen and social media feed has repeated the same message: a strong leader, a decisive government and a “New India.” Yet behind the slogans, choreographed events and endless self promotion lies a harder question that millions of ordinary citizens quietly ask every day: has governance truly improved, or has politics simply become better packaged?

The greatest achievement of the present political era is not economic reform, institutional strengthening or social harmony. It is the mastery of political branding. India has not merely been governed over the past twelve years. It has been marketed.

The distinction matters.

A government committed to democratic governance strengthens institutions so they can function independently. A government obsessed with image building centralises power around a single personality. Today, almost every welfare scheme, every advertisement and every public event revolves around one face and one narrative. Governance has slowly transformed into a permanent election campaign.

The promise of “Achhe Din” carried enormous emotional power in 2014. Millions of Indians were exhausted by corruption scandals, economic uncertainty and political fatigue. The country hoped for cleaner administration, stronger institutions and genuine development. But hope gradually collided with reality.

Unemployment among the youth remains one of the gravest crises facing India today. Educated young people spend years preparing for examinations only to encounter paper leaks, cancelled recruitment processes and shrinking opportunities. Degrees no longer guarantee dignity. Instead of confronting this structural crisis honestly, political discourse is diverted toward emotional and religious polarisation.

Inflation has quietly damaged the middle class and crushed the poor. Rising fuel prices affect everything from transportation to food. Small businesses struggle under economic uncertainty while corporate concentration continues to expand. The language of nationalism is repeatedly invoked, but nationalism without economic justice becomes little more than political theatre.

One of the defining features of the present political climate is the conversion of dissent into suspicion. In a healthy democracy, disagreement strengthens the republic because it keeps power accountable. But increasingly, criticism of the government is portrayed as hostility toward the nation itself. Students, journalists, academics and activists are frequently branded “anti national” merely for questioning authority.

This is a dangerous transformation.

A democracy survives not because everyone agrees with the government, but because citizens retain the freedom to challenge it without fear. Patriotism is not obedience to a ruling party. Patriotism is commitment to constitutional values, justice and democratic accountability.

Another troubling development has been the weakening of institutional independence. Institutions derive legitimacy from neutrality. When investigative agencies, universities, media platforms and public bodies appear politically influenced, public trust erodes. Democracy cannot function solely on electoral victories. It requires strong institutions capable of checking power impartially.

The media too has undergone a dramatic shift. Large sections of television journalism no longer function as independent watchdogs. Instead of asking difficult questions about unemployment, inflation, healthcare or education, much of prime time debate revolves around manufactured outrage and communal anxieties. Complex economic failures are hidden behind emotional spectacles.

The result is a politics of distraction.

Religious symbolism has become central to political communication. Temples, slogans and identity based mobilisation increasingly dominate electoral narratives. Faith is deeply personal and culturally significant in India, but when religion becomes a permanent political instrument, it weakens social harmony. Communities begin viewing one another not as fellow citizens but as political categories.

India’s civilisational strength has always rested on coexistence. The republic envisioned by the Constitution was never meant to privilege one identity over another. It sought unity through diversity, not uniformity through intimidation.

Supporters of the government often argue that India’s international image has improved under the current leadership. Certainly, diplomacy and global visibility matter. But foreign applause cannot substitute domestic well being. A nation’s true strength is measured not by stadium events abroad but by the condition of its citizens at home.

Can ordinary families afford education and healthcare?
Do farmers receive stable incomes?
Are young people finding meaningful employment?
Do citizens feel free to speak without fear?
Are institutions functioning independently?

These are the real measures of governance.

The tragedy of modern Indian politics is that optics increasingly matter more than outcomes. Grand inaugurations are celebrated while public infrastructure often remains incomplete. Massive publicity campaigns create the illusion of transformation even where structural problems persist. Political communication has become so sophisticated that perception frequently overshadows reality.

But democratic memory cannot be permanently controlled through slogans.

Eventually citizens compare promises with lived experience. They compare speeches with household budgets, employment opportunities and social conditions. No publicity machinery can indefinitely silence economic anxiety or social frustration.

India deserves politics that rises above personality worship. The republic cannot depend on a single leader, however popular. Strong nations are built through strong institutions, transparent governance and social trust. Democracies decline when criticism becomes taboo and power becomes concentrated around image rather than accountability.

History teaches a simple lesson: governments that prioritise propaganda over performance eventually weaken the very foundations they claim to protect.

India does not need permanent political spectacle. It needs honest governance, economic fairness, institutional independence and social harmony. The future of the republic depends not on louder slogans, but on deeper democratic commitment.

 

Author’s Introduction

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.

 

From Ramayan to Political Brand: Who Owns “Jai Shri Ram” Today?

 

There was a time when the phrase “Jai Shri Ram” carried an entirely different emotional atmosphere in India. It evoked reverence, simplicity and a shared cultural memory rooted in the Ramayan. For millions of Indians during the nineteen eighties, Lord Ram entered their homes not through political campaigns or ideological conflicts, but through the iconic television adaptation of the Ramayan that aired on national television during the Congress era.

Every Sunday morning, streets would become deserted. Families gathered around television sets with devotion and excitement. People folded their hands before the screen as the story unfolded. The serial was not merely entertainment. It became a cultural experience that united people across regions, languages and social backgrounds. For many Indians, especially an entire generation that grew up during that period, the first visual imagination of Lord Ram came through that televised epic.

The Ramayan of the eighties was associated with morality, sacrifice, compassion, dignity and dharma. It created emotional attachment through storytelling and spiritual imagination rather than political mobilisation. The chant “Jai Shri Ram” in those years felt devotional, intimate and civilisational. It belonged to homes, temples and cultural memory.

The impact of that serial cannot be understood merely through the language of television ratings or entertainment history. It was one of the rare moments in independent India when a cultural text emotionally united millions beyond class, caste, language and region. Urban middle class families, villagers, children, elderly people and even those with limited literacy sat together to watch the same story unfold. The Ramayan entered the collective emotional bloodstream of India.

Interestingly, the atmosphere around the serial was not one of political hostility or aggressive identity assertion. The Ramayan was viewed as civilisational inheritance rather than partisan property. Lord Ram was not presented as a political mascot but as an ethical and spiritual figure whose life represented restraint, sacrifice, truthfulness and moral responsibility.

Yet history took an unexpected turn.

Several actors associated with that deeply spiritual television phenomenon later entered active politics and eventually became linked with saffron political movements and parties. Their transition from mythological representation to political symbolism itself reflects how religion, celebrity culture and electoral politics gradually merged in modern India. The cultural imagery created during the eighties slowly became absorbed into ideological narratives during the decades that followed.

This transformation deserves careful reflection.

Today, however, India stands in a very different atmosphere.

Over the last few decades, the phrase “Jai Shri Ram” has increasingly acquired political meaning in public consciousness. For many people now, hearing “Jai Shri Ram” immediately evokes election rallies, ideological campaigns, television debates, aggressive street politics or partisan mobilisation before it evokes the Ramayan itself.

But would this association exist in the same way outside India?

If one travels to countries like Indonesia, Nepal or Thailand, where the Ramayan continues to influence culture, theatre, art and spirituality, the immediate association with Lord Ram is still civilisational rather than electoral. In Bali, Ramayan performances remain part of cultural life. In Thailand, the Ramakien tradition continues as part of national cultural identity. In Nepal, Janakpur and the memory of Sita remain spiritually alive in collective consciousness.

There, Ram is still primarily encountered through culture, devotion and heritage.

In India increasingly, Ram is also encountered through political identity.

That contrast itself should make Indians pause and reflect.

The slogan that once emotionally connected grandparents and children through shared storytelling now often appears in political speeches, social media conflicts, protest marches and electoral campaigns. In many contexts, the phrase no longer sounds purely devotional. It sounds politically charged.

This is not necessarily because Lord Ram changed.

It is because public perception changed.

This transformation raises important questions that go beyond ordinary political debate. The issue here is not whether one supports or opposes the Bharatiya Janata Party. Political parties are temporary institutions. They rise, evolve, fragment and eventually decline. That is the nature of democratic politics. No political organisation is permanent.

But Hindu civilisation is not temporary.

Sanatana Dharma existed long before modern political parties and will continue long after present political formations disappear. That is why the gradual merging of religious symbolism with partisan identity raises an important civilisational concern.

When a sacred chant begins becoming psychologically inseparable from a political identity, something deeper changes within society.

In communication studies and branding psychology, there is a concept often described as brand synonymity. Through repeated association, one symbol becomes mentally tied to another identity so strongly that separating them becomes difficult in public perception.

India appears to be witnessing this phenomenon with several Hindu symbols and expressions.

This did not happen suddenly. It emerged slowly through decades of imagery, political campaigns, speeches, processions, television narratives, visual symbolism and emotional repetition. Repeated exposure gradually conditioned public consciousness. The result is that a deeply spiritual expression increasingly carries political meaning whether one intends it or not.

The consequence is subtle yet profound.

A slogan once rooted primarily in devotion increasingly becomes interpreted as political signalling. In many situations today, a person saying “Jai Shri Ram” may immediately be assumed to belong to a specific ideological or political camp irrespective of personal belief or intention.

This should concern anyone who values the spiritual breadth of Hindu civilisation.

Lord Ram does not belong to any political party. Ram belongs to literature, ethics, philosophy, art, poetry and civilisational consciousness. Ram belongs equally to the devotee praying quietly in a village temple, the scholar studying Valmiki, the grandmother narrating stories to children and the ordinary Hindu seeking moral inspiration from the Ramayan.

Ram also belongs to different interpretations.

Some worship Ram as God.

Some see Ram as an ethical ideal.

Some view the Ramayan philosophically.

Some appreciate it culturally.

Some encounter Ram through bhakti traditions while others encounter him through literature and theatre.

This diversity is precisely what made Hindu civilisation resilient for thousands of years.

Historically, Hindu civilisation survived not because of rigid uniformity but because of diversity and plurality. Hindu traditions allowed multiple interpretations, philosophical disagreements and varied paths toward spiritual understanding. That openness became one of its greatest strengths.

Within Hindu thought itself, there are Advaitins, Dvaitins, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Smarthas and many other traditions. Hindu civilisation historically absorbed contradictions instead of collapsing because of them. Debate was not viewed as betrayal. Difference was not automatically treated as hostility.

Modern politics, however, often thrives on polarisation and binary loyalties.

Politics demands camps.

It creates supporters and opponents.

It simplifies complexity into slogans.

It rewards emotional mobilisation more than philosophical nuance.

Increasingly, social discourse creates an atmosphere where religious identity appears expected to align automatically with political allegiance. This indirectly pressures individuals to demonstrate political loyalty through religious symbolism or religious commitment through partisan affiliation.

That is where the real danger begins.

Because once religion becomes tightly linked with party identity, criticism of politics starts appearing like criticism of faith itself. Political accountability becomes emotionally difficult. Rational debate weakens because emotional devotion enters electoral discourse.

The consequences for democracy are serious.

But the consequences for religion may be even deeper.

Can someone deeply love Ram while disagreeing with BJP policies?

Certainly.

Can a Hindu revere the Ramayan while remaining politically independent?

Absolutely.

Can devotion exist separately from electoral preference?

It must.

A civilisation as ancient as Hinduism cannot survive if spirituality becomes dependent on partisan loyalty. Faith must remain larger than political identity.

Otherwise, religion risks shrinking into ideological branding.

This ultimately harms both religion and democracy.

Politics naturally contains competition, propaganda, aggression and electoral calculation. Religion, at its best, attempts to elevate moral consciousness beyond temporary conflicts. When faith becomes deeply fused with party politics, criticism of political actions can begin appearing as criticism of religion itself. Rational democratic debate weakens because emotional devotion enters partisan space.

The long term consequences may be serious.

Future generations may encounter Lord Ram first through political slogans, social media confrontations and election narratives rather than through the ethical universe of the Ramayan. Their understanding of Ram may emerge more from partisan discourse than from spiritual or cultural learning.

That would represent a profound civilisational loss.

The Ramayan survived across centuries not because it was politically useful but because it carried ethical and emotional depth. Lord Ram symbolised restraint, sacrifice, responsibility, dignity and moral struggle. These values transcended kingdoms, rulers and political systems.

Ram was admired not because he won elections but because he represented ethical discipline under difficult circumstances.

The greatness of the Ramayan lies in its moral complexity. Ram faces exile, separation, responsibility, grief, kingship and ethical dilemmas. The text survives because people across centuries saw human struggle and moral aspiration within it.

Reducing Ram into an electoral symbol risks diminishing that universality.

This does not mean religion should disappear from public life. Hindu civilisation has always shaped festivals, social ethics, literature and collective culture. Spiritual traditions naturally influence society and even politics. But influence is different from ownership.

No political organisation should become the exclusive interpreter or gatekeeper of Hindu identity.

Sanatana Dharma is too vast, ancient and layered to be contained within electoral frameworks. It belongs to millions of Hindus with different political beliefs, philosophical understandings and social experiences.

The irony is striking.

The same India that once watched the Ramayan together in collective cultural reverence now often experiences Ram through political conflict and ideological division. What was once a source of spiritual unity sometimes becomes a source of social polarisation.

This shift must be examined honestly.

Not emotionally.

Not defensively.

But thoughtfully.

The memory of the Ramayan serial from the eighties reminds India of a time when Lord Ram united people culturally without forcing political conformity. That memory itself raises an important question for contemporary India.

Are we preserving Ram as a timeless spiritual and civilisational presence?

Or are we gradually turning him into a permanent political brand?

And if future generations begin recognising Lord Ram first through party politics rather than through the Ramayan itself, will that strengthen Hindu civilisation or weaken its spiritual depth?

These are uncomfortable questions.

But civilisations survive not by avoiding uncomfortable questions but by confronting them honestly.

The real issue is not whether religion and politics can ever intersect. Throughout history, they always have. The real issue is whether politics eventually begins consuming religion itself.

When a political identity becomes dominant enough to monopolise religious symbolism, dissenting believers begin feeling alienated within their own faith tradition. A Hindu who disagrees politically should not feel socially pressured to prove devotion. Spiritual belonging should not depend upon ideological conformity.

Ram must remain larger than political competition.

Because once a civilisation reduces its spiritual inheritance into partisan property, it begins weakening the very universality that allowed it to survive for centuries.

The Ramayan of the eighties offered India devotion without hostility, spirituality without aggression and cultural unity without political coercion. That memory remains important because it reminds the country that Ram can unite people beyond party structures.

Perhaps that is the Ram India must protect.

Not merely the slogan.

But the civilisational soul behind it.

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.

Sabitri Puja in Odisha: Between Devotion, Patriarchy, Divorce and the Changing Idea of Womanhood

 

Every year in Odisha, the festival of Sabitri Puja arrives wrapped in fasting, rituals, red sarees, bangles, sindoor and prayers for the long life of husbands. The image is emotionally powerful: married women, from villages to cities, observing a day-long fast in memory of the mythological Savitri who brought her husband Satyavan back from death through determination and devotion. For many Odia families, the festival is not merely religious. It is emotional inheritance, domestic tradition and cultural identity.

Yet in modern India, Sabitri Puja also stands at the centre of uncomfortable questions. In an age of rising divorce rates, growing feminist discourse, women’s education, constitutional rights and changing family structures, what does this ritual really signify? Is it an expression of love and commitment? Or does it silently preserve unequal expectations from women? Can culture survive without patriarchy? And can a civilisation evolve without abandoning its roots?

The debate is no longer avoidable.

At one level, Sabitri Puja reflects the emotional architecture of traditional Indian society. Marriage in Indian civilisation was never viewed merely as a contract between two individuals. It was regarded as a sacred union tied to family continuity, duty and social order. The fasting wife became a symbol of sacrifice, endurance and spiritual strength. Savitri herself was portrayed not as weak, but as intellectually sharp and morally courageous. She confronted Yama, the god of death, through wisdom and persistence. In that sense, the original legend contained agency and resilience.

However, over centuries, the social interpretation of the ritual changed. The focus gradually shifted from Savitri’s courage to the idea of the “ideal wife” whose life revolves around preserving her husband’s existence. Society celebrated female sacrifice but rarely demanded equal emotional or moral sacrifice from men. The husband became central; the wife became devotional.

This is where feminist criticism emerges.

Modern feminism does not merely attack rituals. It questions unequal power structures hidden beneath cultural practices. Feminist scholars argue that festivals like Sabitri Puja reinforce a social expectation that women alone must carry the burden of preserving marriage. Why must only wives fast for husbands? Why are husbands not socially expected to undertake similar rituals for wives? Why is female virtue constantly measured through sacrifice, patience and endurance?

The criticism becomes sharper when one observes social realities. Indian society has historically tolerated male irresponsibility more easily than female independence. A divorced woman is often judged more harshly than a divorced man. Widows have long faced social stigma. Married women are culturally pressured to “save” marriages even in situations involving emotional neglect, domestic violence or humiliation. Within this framework, Sabitri Puja sometimes appears less like spiritual devotion and more like symbolic conditioning.

At the same time, dismissing the festival entirely as “sexist” may also oversimplify the matter.

Many women themselves defend the ritual passionately. For them, Sabitri Puja is not coercion but emotional choice. It represents affection, companionship, continuity and faith. Many educated, financially independent women continue to observe the fast voluntarily. They see it as an intimate cultural practice rather than patriarchal oppression. In Odisha especially, the festival is tied deeply to memory: mothers teaching daughters rituals, families gathering together, markets glowing with festive energy and a shared sense of Odia identity.

Culture is rarely black and white.

The real tension lies in whether tradition allows freedom. A ritual becomes oppressive not merely because it exists, but because society punishes those who reject it. If a woman freely observes Sabitri Puja, it is cultural participation. If she is emotionally blackmailed, morally judged or socially isolated for not observing it, then the ritual becomes a tool of patriarchal control.

Law enters precisely at this point.

The Indian Constitution guarantees equality, dignity, privacy and freedom of conscience. Marriage under modern law is no longer indissoluble destiny. Divorce is legally recognised because the law accepts that not all marriages are healthy or sustainable. Feminist legal reforms have expanded women’s rights regarding maintenance, domestic violence, inheritance and marital autonomy. The law increasingly views women not merely as wives but as independent constitutional citizens.

This constitutional modernity often clashes with traditional morality.

In many conservative settings, divorced women continue to face subtle exclusion from rituals associated with married status. Festivals like Sabitri Puja become reminders of how Indian society still glorifies marital permanence even when relationships are emotionally broken. The “successful woman” is often unconsciously defined as one who preserves marriage at any cost.

But civilisation evolves through questioning.

No culture remains alive by freezing itself in time. Indian civilisation itself has constantly transformed through debate, reform and reinterpretation. Practices once defended as sacred, including child marriage or denial of widow remarriage, were challenged and changed. Reformers from Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar questioned oppressive customs while remaining rooted in Indian civilisation.

The same challenge exists today.

The future of Sabitri Puja may depend not on abandoning it, but on redefining it. Instead of glorifying female suffering, the ritual could evolve into a celebration of mutual care and equal partnership. Marriage cannot survive in modern society through fear, dependency or gender hierarchy. It survives through respect, consent and emotional reciprocity.

A husband praying for his wife’s wellbeing should appear as natural as a wife praying for her husband. Shared rituals reflect shared humanity.

The larger social anxiety around feminism also needs honest examination. In many Indian discussions, feminism is wrongly portrayed as anti-family or anti-culture. In reality, feminism at its core seeks dignity, equality and freedom of choice. It does not prevent a woman from observing Sabitri Puja. It merely insists that she must have the freedom not to observe it without social condemnation.

That distinction is crucial.

Similarly, rising divorce rates should not automatically be viewed as civilisational collapse. Sometimes divorces increase because women are no longer trapped economically or socially in abusive relationships. The ability to leave a harmful marriage can also indicate expanding personal freedom. A society obsessed only with preserving marriages, regardless of suffering, mistakes endurance for virtue.

Yet modern individualism also carries risks. Hyper consumerism, emotional detachment and weakening social bonds can create loneliness and instability. Therefore, blindly rejecting all traditions may produce its own emptiness. Human beings still seek belonging, continuity and symbolic meaning. Rituals provide emotional structure to collective life.

The challenge before Indian society is therefore not choosing between tradition and modernity, but humanising both.

Sabitri Puja today stands as a mirror reflecting India’s transition. It reveals the tension between devotion and autonomy, culture and equality, memory and reform. The answer does not lie in mocking traditions nor in blindly worshipping them. It lies in asking whether a practice enhances human dignity or restricts it.

A civilisation matures not when it silences questions, but when it develops the courage to confront them.

Savitri’s true strength perhaps was never blind obedience. It was courage, intellect, resilience and determination in the face of death itself. If modern society remembers only her sacrifice and forgets her strength, then it misunderstands the very legend it celebrates.

And perhaps that is the real conversation Odisha and India must now have.

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.

Nature Did Not Draft the Alibi

 

 

“Men are polygamous by nature” is not a scientific conclusion. It is a courtroom defence crafted without evidence, repeated often enough to sound like truth. In the theatre of human relationships, biology is frequently summoned as a convenient witness, one that cannot be cross examined.

As a lawyer, one learns early that the most dangerous arguments are those that feel instinctively correct but collapse under scrutiny. This is one of them.

Human beings are not governed by instinct alone. If they were, there would be no contracts, no marriages, no promises, no law. Civilization itself is a rebellion against raw impulse. The very existence of commitment proves that restraint is as natural as desire.

The claim of inherent male polygamy is less about nature and more about narrative. It converts choice into inevitability and responsibility into accident. It quietly absolves the individual by shifting blame to biology. But law does not recognise such poetry. Nor does ethics.

Indian constitutional jurisprudence, especially in recent years, has moved in the opposite direction. It has consistently expanded the idea of autonomy, dignity, and choice in matters of intimacy.

The landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India marked a decisive shift. The Supreme Court did not merely decriminalise homosexuality. It affirmed that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of identity, not a moral failing. The court spoke in the language of dignity, not biology. It recognised that human relationships cannot be reduced to rigid categories imposed by society.

Similarly, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the court struck down the colonial offence of adultery. It did not endorse infidelity. Instead, it refused to criminalise it. The judgment made a subtle but crucial distinction. The state cannot police morality, but individuals remain accountable within the realm of relationships. Adultery moved from crime to consequence.

Live in relationships, once whispered about, now stand acknowledged within legal frameworks. Courts have repeatedly held that consenting adults have the right to cohabit without marriage. High Courts across India have extended protection to such couples, recognising that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to choose one’s partner and the manner of living.

Even more telling is the judiciary’s evolving engagement with LGBTQ relationships. While the Supreme Court in Supriyo v. Union of India stopped short of recognising same sex marriage, it emphatically upheld the dignity and rights of queer individuals. It directed the state to ensure that such relationships are not discriminated against in access to services and benefits.

High Courts have gone further in certain contexts. They have granted protection to same sex couples facing familial threats. They have acknowledged that love, regardless of gender, falls within the protective ambit of constitutional liberty.

Taken together, these developments reveal a consistent judicial philosophy. The law is not interested in who desires whom. It is concerned with whether that desire respects consent, dignity, and autonomy.

Against this backdrop, the claim of “natural polygamy” appears almost juvenile. The law does not prohibit desire. It regulates conduct. It expects individuals to honour commitments they voluntarily enter into. If one chooses monogamy, then fidelity is not a biological burden but a moral obligation.

Philosophically, the argument collapses even further. To say that something is natural is not to say it is justified. Anger is natural. So is greed. So is violence. Civilization exists precisely to discipline these impulses, not to glorify them.

The more honest statement would be this: human beings are capable of multiple desires, but also capable of restraint. The tension between the two is what defines moral agency.

There is also a subtle arrogance in attributing polygamy exclusively to men. It assumes that women are passive participants in the architecture of desire. Modern reality has long dismantled this illusion. Desire is not gendered. Responsibility is not optional.

The humour lies in the defence itself. A man caught in infidelity suddenly becomes an evolutionary biologist. He discovers “nature” only after being discovered. Before that, he is remarkably committed to secrecy, which is not a known trait of natural behaviour.

If polygamy were truly inevitable, concealment would be unnecessary. One does not hide what is natural. One hides what one knows to be questionable.

In the end, the law offers no refuge to such arguments. It neither criminalises desire nor excuses deception. It places the burden where it belongs on choice.

Relationships are not governed by what one feels in a fleeting moment, but by what one chooses over time. Fidelity is not the absence of temptation. It is the refusal to convert temptation into action.

Nature did not draft the alibi. Humans did.

And like most poorly drafted arguments, it fails the moment it is tested.

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law, politics and society.