Have you ever thought what keeps a civilization alive? Not just functioning, but thriving, irrespective of the flow of time. Is it the paper that forms a constitution, or is it something different, something far older, something abstract, something deep rooted in the memories of people?
The Indian subcontinent, let’s call it Bharat, is not just another part of land drawn on the world map. It is an idea, an experience, a living, breathing entity that has its marking far back from modern political systems that we have today. And yet, here we are in the 21st century, having a continuous conflict between the civilization and the constitution.
Now, before anyone gets it wrong, let me clarify, I am not arguing against the constitution. The constitution is a wonderful document, created from a needed sense of history and necessity. But the question I want to ask is, can it, in its modern form, truly expresses the vast and ancient soul of this land? Or putting it another way, can civic nationalism, which is shaped in discussion rooms and parliaments, can replace the deep rooted civilizational spirit that millions of people carry within them?
Consider this, we want to uproot an ancient tree, to replace it with a steel pole, both can stand tall, yes, both will provide shadows. But the tree’s roots can reach deeper into the soil, having nourishment from various layers of earth, something that the pole will never be able to do. The pole, even with being strong and sturdy, always will remain…foreign to the land.
You see, when India gained independence, political decolonization was happening all around, flags were lowered, speeches were made, and the British went away. But the question is, did we truly decolonize our minds, our institution, or our self-perception? Or did we simply traded from one ruler to another?
The truth is, colonial superiority did not leave. It simply changed form. Where once we were told that our traditions, our identities, were primitive and needed “civilizing,“ today, we are told that those same markers of identity are “regressive” and “communal.”
I agree, the modern world, with its emphasis on secularism and civic values, has its place, true. But should we erase the past to embrace the present? Is it really impossible to honour both “Ram” and “The Republic?” I feel, the answer is no, its not impossible, these two can walk together, hand in hand, one providing the roots, and the other the branches.
There is a truth that most of us often overlook while discussing this topic. That communities, civilizations, and their symbols, whether religious, linguistic, or cultural, have outlasted empires, ideologies, and yes, even constitutions. Why? Because they speak to something primal in us, something timeless. One must understand, that collective memories cannot be erased by laws, and the question to ask is, why would you want to? It is not only ineffective, but also harmful, it poses the risk of distorted understanding of history, whether the memories are delightful or painful, it’s still an essential part of groups identity and understanding of itself, which serves as a source of strength and inspiration in times of hardships.
“The constitution may tell us what rights we have, but dharma tells us what our duties are”, this I believe is the essence. Absence of any of these two will make the society incomplete.
Now, for the fear which people have, that without strict constitutional adherence, Bharat will somehow descend into chaos is, not senseful. This is not my statement, our history advocates it. Our neighboring countries have struggled with continuous coups and instability despite having their own constitutions, but Bharat has remained resilient. Why? Because beneath the upper layer of laws and institutions, there lies an older, more core moral compass, one that values pluralism, not as a legal obligation, but as a way of life.
You might be thinking, isn’t with this way we would be risking the very secular idea that holds this nation together? Valid concern, but let’s remember, that secularism, in its truest form, does not means the absence of identity. It means respect for all identities.
We have to remember that constitution is a guide, and the civilizational identity is not the enemy of constitutionalism, but its elder sibling. A nations is not just built on laws, but is built on stories, shared memories, and the subtle heartbeat in the form of a civilization. Bharat’s heart beats strong. Let’s not silence it in the name of progress, let’s listen closely and allow it to shape our collective destiny as a nation.