Soon after the dawn of freedom, India framed a constitution with a new philosophy of building a nation on the basis of equality, equity, freedom of religion and faith, justice with all its dimensions aiming at nurturing and promoting social unity and brotherhood along with upholding national integrity and sovereignty. India was conceived as a nation to march on a democratic republican path.

 Such a framework of governance presupposed certain conditions of social and political behaviour and training. For example, while assuring and ensuring the cultural and religious freedom to each section of the society, of the minority communities in particular, it was presumed that these communities would maintain a harmonious balance between identitarianism and nationalism.

Another example can be taken from the chapter on fundamental rights wherein various social, economic and political aspects of a free society were given due recognition, it was also expected that no right assumed an absolutist character. Article 19 can be cited as a fit case of striking a balance between individual freedom and social/national interests.

The chapter on Directive Principles of state policy was inserted as an instrument of social justice and inclusion, Article 39 and 44 being the most important of them all, even though all other provisions cannot be undervalued at the same time. However, it may not be wrong to assert that many of these provisions were sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics or were treated as merely ornamental or paper weights. For example, Muslim women continued to suffer the agony of sub-human treatment at the hands of their male counterparts despite the existence of Article 44 as a part of the supreme law of the land.

Article 44 remains a dead letter even after seven decades of independence. Even the matters like triple talaq, polygamy and maintenance are being screened through the political and identitarian prism ignoring the cries for gender justice by the Muslim women.

The Modi government did make an attempt to at least criminalise triple talaq, yet faced an obstinate opposition to the measure resulting in the lapse of the Bill to that effect. This is being done all in the name of religious or cultural freedom or for the sake of upholding the identitarian principles.

Keeping in mind the then prevailing situation, the framers of the constitution decided in their wisdom to provide for some temporary provisions granting special status to some areas specially the Jammu and Kashmir in the shape of Article 370 and later a clandestine, illegal insertion of Article 35A by the Government led by Jawaharlal Nehru without referring the matter to the parliament. The affirmative provisions, commonly known as reservation, in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes aimed at undoing the social injustices, discrimination and inequalities in the society were made part of the constitution for a period of 10 years initially. Later, the political class of the country decided to extend this benefit to the Other Backward Classes too.

Why I am talking of these constitutional premises is only to draw attention to the widening gulf between the philosophy and the outcome of the implementation of the constitution. The pertinent questions that should agitate the minds of every right-thinking Indian today are why even after 70 years of constitutionally driven governance the divisive tendencies/mentalities continue to gain support within the national boundaries of India?

Why the social identity in terms of caste, religion, language and region still remain an important guiding force for the people to act or react in a certain manner including the violent one? Why Indian democracy is deprived of healthy, constructive or substantive debates on matters of social, economic and political significance? Why the curse of poverty, corruption, caste and injustice do not get the attention on a continual scale and if given a trial on that scale why it fails to get the support that the initiative deserves without reference to the source of that initiative?

Why India should pay the costs it does on account of the negative, unproductive, unsubstantiated behaviours and thoughts? Why thousands of thousands of lives be lost to the machinations of the propagandists of identity-regional or social? Why, for example, Kashmir should continue to bleed merely to satiate the thirst of power of the separatists or exclusivists? Why should not there be a dispassionate review of the utility or otherwise of Article 370 and Article 35A in the light of the fact that neither Kashmir nor Kashmiris have benefitted in terms of quality of life in any significant manner?

Is it not time enough to examine the social efficacy of the affirmative policy in vogue for decades particularly when one sees a number of violent acts and relations of rivalry between the castes and communities? Should social identity get priority over national identity? If not, what is required to ensure that national interests do not become subservient to identity politics going to the extent of separatism?

Is it not the process of political decay, trivialization of politics and narrowing national vision of the people at the helm of governance that is responsible for the present crisis of political trust and efficacy? The answer to all these questions in my view lies only in the affirmative approach to politics and the solution lies in making a thorough review of the efficacy and relevance of the present constitutional mechanism for addressing the contemporary challenges facing India as an emerging power globally and the issues that have been hindering the social harmony and unity on the one side and challenging the integrity and sovereignty of our nation howsoever feeble or strong they may be internally.

For this to happen, the political leadership of the country shall have to rise above mere power politics, though integral in a democratic system, and evolve a bi-partisan approach to wipe out the divisive spots from the political map of India. The opposition must act in sync with the government, instead of creating disaffection against it, on matters like security, the criticism based on real facts and figures should be welcome by the government with a view to undertake course correction if required.

A code of conduct should be framed for the legislators and enforced strictly. If any political leader speaks any divisive or anti-national language or involves oneself in any such overt or covert act inside or outside the legislature, appropriate action frame should be put in place to immediately deal with him/her.

(The author is a veteran political commentator)