Nation, democracy and citizenship

The evolution of the Indian nation-state is deeply intertwined with the ideas of nationalism, democracy, and citizenship. These concepts have been shaped by both colonial experiences and indigenous intellectual traditions. Indian thinkers have offered nuanced critiques and visions of what nationalism, democracy, and citizenship should mean in a diverse, hierarchical society such as India.

Indian Thinkers on Nationalism

Nationalism in India has been debated and redefined by multiple intellectuals. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed Gandhi’s cultural nationalism, viewing it as an imposition of Aryan Brahminical culture on non-Aryan South Indian groups. He considered Hinduism as a hegemonic force that undermined plural identities and warned that a homogenizing nationalism would marginalize oppressed castes and minorities.

Amartya Sen viewed nationalism with skepticism, particularly when it took the form of religious revivalism. He argued that it compromised individual freedoms, secularism, and welfare policies, often triggering communal violence. Similarly, Andre Beteille believed aggressive nationalism distracted from social justice goals like gender equality, education, and caste equity—arguing for a more pluralistic and inclusive national development.

D.L. Joshi emphasized understanding the historical trajectory of nationalism—its rise, evolution, and decline—acknowledging the persistence of cultural nationalism and its manipulation by political elites. Ramachandra Guha, however, advocated for broader interpretations of nationalism such as “cricket nationalism” or “Kargil solidarity,” which emphasize civic unity over ethno-cultural dominance.

Origin and Nature of Indian Nationalism

Indian nationalism emerged not from a shared political history but from common cultural threads and a shared colonial adversary. Before 1858, India was a mosaic of princely states and territories. Yet, a semblance of cultural unity existed, as seen in Adi Shankaracharya's establishment of four religious centers across India. The British colonial regime served as a common enemy, and the resultant oppression catalyzed the development of a collective Indian identity.

Social Democracy and Ambedkar’s Vision

Dr. Ambedkar defined social democracy as a way of life rooted in liberty, equality, and fraternity. For him, political democracy would be hollow without social democracy. These values were institutionalized through constitutional provisions such as:

• Article 14 ensuring equality before law,

• Articles 15 & 16 enabling affirmative action,

• Article 17 abolishing untouchability, and

• Article 23 prohibiting exploitation like forced labor.

Further, Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) such as Articles 38 and 39 envisioned a welfare state promoting equitable distribution of wealth and resources.

Political Democracy in India

India’s political democracy is anchored in the Constitutional framework that upholds universal adult franchise, rule of law, and a representative parliamentary system. Fundamental rights ensure civil liberties such as freedom of speech and protection from arbitrary arrest. Through Article 324, the Election Commission of India ensures free and fair elections. Political democracy in India, therefore, is characterized by citizen participation, accountability of the executive, and periodic electoral renewal.

Citizenship and Its Contestations

Citizenship in India has become increasingly contentious. The Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status reflects legal ambiguities, especially during crises like COVID-19, where restrictions on donations to non-FCRA-certified NGOs limited aid. Additionally, OCIs are often treated as foreigners, underlining gaps in India’s citizenship framework.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 attracted criticism for its selective inclusion of six religious minorities from only three neighboring countries, ignoring groups like Rohingya Muslims or Sri Lankan Tamils. This selective approach violates India’s secular ethos, a basic structure of the Constitution. Moreover, legal inconsistencies such as differing laws (IMDT Act for Assam, Foreigners Act for the rest) have led to confusion in migrant identification.

Amartya Sen critiques the sedentary model of citizenship in India where rights are not portable across states—termed “passive exclusion.” Migrants, for example, face challenges in accessing food rations and exercising voting rights outside their home state.

Protective Discrimination: Reservation Debate

India’s policy of protective discrimination has both defenders and critics. Ambedkar strongly supported reservation, especially for Scheduled Castes, arguing that only self-representation could ensure real empowerment. He viewed untouchables and Shudras as historically excluded communities requiring state intervention.

Supporters argue that reservation:

• Enables elite circulation from lower castes (Satish Saberwal),

• Sensitizes dominant groups to caste injustices,

• Fulfills constitutional mandates under Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46.

However, critics point to:

• Exclusion of newer groups like Dalit Muslims and Christians,

• Distributional inefficiency, with benefits captured by dominant OBC groups (G. Rohini Commission),

• Risk of essentialism, where caste becomes a rigid social identity.

Moreover, reservation hasn’t transformed ground realities. Surveys like Action Aid (2001–02) showed that untouchability remains widespread. In education, institutions have failed to prevent caste-based discrimination, as seen in the VMMC case. Urban segregation continues to mirror rural caste hierarchies (Vithayathil & Singh).

Limitations and the Path Forward

The reservation policy has limitations:

• It often targets vertical (inter-caste) discrimination while ignoring horizontal (intra-caste) issues, like Dalits discriminating against lower Dalits (Navsarjan study).

• It does not address the root causes of poverty or unemployment, merely redistributing limited opportunities.

A more equitable system may require:

• Focus on economic and educational development for the marginalized,

• Periodic review of reservation benefits to ensure inclusivity,

• Greater emphasis on universal entitlements like health, housing, and education.

Demand for New States and Pluralism in Indian Polity: An Integrated Essay

India’s complex socio-political landscape has witnessed continuous demands for the reorganization of state boundaries, often driven by regional, ethnic, cultural, and economic aspirations. Simultaneously, India is a celebrated case of pluralism, where multiple identities coexist under the broader canopy of national unity. Understanding the rationale behind demands for new states, and the mechanisms through which pluralism sustains national integration, helps in appreciating the vibrancy of India’s democracy.

Demand for New States: Roots and Rationales

The demand for new states in India is neither new nor irrational. It has evolved from legitimate aspirations of people seeking better governance, cultural recognition, and socio-economic development.

1. Physiographic Distinctiveness
   Natural geography often influences administrative efficiency. The creation of Uttarakhand (mountainous), Jharkhand (plateau region), and Chhattisgarh (forested basin) stemmed from the argument that unique terrains require specialized governance models.

2. Economic Development and Resource Allocation
   States like Jharkhand and Gorkhaland have pointed to agrarian crises, lack of industrial investment, and poor infrastructure to argue that smaller, more focused state administrations could lead to better development outcomes. In contrast, regions like Tulunadu or Kodagu, despite cultural identity, face criticism due to unsustainable resource bases.

3. Ethnic and Cultural Identity
   Cultural pluralism often translates into political assertion. Nagaland was formed to respect the unique tribal heritage of its people. Similarly, various regions assert that administrative recognition is essential to preserving their traditions and languages.

4. Geographical Size and Administrative Complexity
   Large states such as Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan face demands for bifurcation—Harit Pradesh and Maru Pradesh respectively—on the grounds of unwieldy administration and unequal development.

5. Tribalism and Planning Needs
   Regions with a significant tribal population, such as Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, demanded separate states to implement customized planning models. These ensure the protection of tribal rights and resources, often overlooked in larger states.

These demands reflect the desire for better governance rather than secession. They are rooted in the federal structure and allowed by constitutional provisions such as Article 3, which empowers Parliament to reorganize states.

Pluralism and National Unity: A Symbiotic Relationship

Pluralism forms the bedrock of India’s unity. It refers to the peaceful coexistence of diverse cultural, linguistic, religious, and social groups within a shared political framework. Indian pluralism is deep-rooted in both traditional and modern institutions.

Traditional Basis of Indian Pluralism

1. Cultural Symbols and Heritage
   Monuments like the Taj Mahal, Kashi Temple, and Ajanta Caves reflect India’s civilizational depth. These are not just religious or regional structures but symbols of collective pride.

2. Multiple Identities
   Indian identity does not demand exclusivity. A person can simultaneously be Tamil, Hindu, Indian, and a global citizen. Regional, linguistic, and religious identities exist harmoniously.

3. Linguistic Diversity
   India’s Three-Language Formula—regional, national (Hindi), and international (English)—demonstrates linguistic accommodation. No single language dominates the national imagination.

4. Religious Plurality
   Every region has its own gods, festivals, and rituals. This decentralized religious landscape resists uniformity and promotes tolerance.

5. Political History
   India was historically ruled by multiple dynasties simultaneously—e.g., Mughals in the North, Vijayanagar in the South. This fostered an acceptance of political multiplicity.

Modern Institutions and Pluralism

1. Constitutional Guarantees
   The Indian Constitution is the ultimate custodian of pluralism, granting rights to minorities and promoting federalism.

2. Judiciary and Civil Society
   The Supreme Court defends the Constitution, even against the State. Civil society and a vibrant media hold institutions accountable, protecting dissent.

3. Federal Governance
   Decentralization allows states to frame their own policies on education, health, and culture. This ensures that local needs are respected within the national framework.

4. Inclusive Politics
   India’s multiparty democracy accommodates various interest groups, from caste-based parties to regional outfits, ensuring that no single narrative dominates.

Unity in Diversity: Indian Experience

Jawaharlal Nehru eloquently described India’s unity in diversity as not merely intellectual but emotional. This unity, rooted in shared civilizational values, transcends religious, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries.

Composite Culture and Assimilation

India’s culture is composite—formed through centuries of interaction among various communities. The assimilation of Jews, Zoroastrians, and Tibetans into Indian society reflects this openness.

Segmented Yet Integrated Society

India’s social fabric is segmented but not fractured. Different communities often operate in separate social circles, yet coexist peacefully. The caste system is an example of an asymmetric hierarchy, where ritual status doesn’t always align with political or economic power.

Challenges to Pluralism

1. Majoritarianism
   When majority groups override minority rights, it disrupts the plural ethos. True democracy respects all communities equally.

2. Globalization and Identity Loss
   The forces of globalization can erode cultural uniqueness and marginalize indigenous values.

3. From Pluralism to Polarisation
   Chauvinism and sectarian politics shift the focus from coexistence to confrontation. This threatens the secular foundations of Indian democracy.

4. Fragmentation through Identity Politics
   Caste and regional politics can fragment national unity, leading to localised conflicts and weakening of the federal spirit.

5. Social Disintegration through Economic Inequality
   Capitalist growth often colludes with political power, leading to inequalities that disintegrate social cohesion.

Way Forward: Sustaining Pluralism and Unity

1. Constitutional Reforms and Justice
   Reviewing the judicial system to reinforce equality and inclusivity is essential.

2. Educational Awareness
   Citizens must be educated about constitutional values, rights, and duties to nurture pluralistic thinking.

3. National Reconciliation and Inclusion
   Building a just society requires transitional governments, open dialogues, and protecting vulnerable communities.

4. Multiculturalism as State Policy
   Accepting that no culture can be fully understood by another promotes mutual respect. Multiculturalism helps prevent cultural domination.

5. State’s Role in Upholding Pluralism
   The State must actively safeguard constitutional values, ensuring that no caste, religion, or language dominates the national narrative.