Playing the Damru While the Republic Burns

Spectacle, Silence, and the Abdication of Governance in Contemporary India

-Ramphal Kataria

History as Distraction: Political Ritual and Democratic Decline in Modi’s India

Abstract

This article critically examines the contemporary shift from governance to spectacle in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, using the Somnath Swabhiman Parv of January 2026 as an analytical lens. It argues that the public performance of ritualised nationalism—symbolised by the Prime Minister playing the damru at Somnath—coincided with, and distracted from, a convergence of serious crises: a public health emergency in Delhi caused by severe air pollution, institutional communalisation in higher education, persistent caste violence, the dilution of labour guarantees, and a foreign policy marked by strategic silence. Drawing on media reports, regulatory documents, and public health data, the article situates these developments within a broader pattern of governance that privileges historical symbolism and civilisational grievance over constitutional responsibility and material welfare. The Somnath episode is read not as an isolated cultural event but as part of a political technique wherein history is mobilised to displace accountability in the present. The article contends that such spectacle-driven politics risks hollowing out democratic norms and weakening the republic’s capacity to address urgent social and environmental challenges.

Moments of crisis reveal not only the priorities of power but also its moral architecture. In January 2026, as India confronted an accumulation of social, diplomatic, environmental, and constitutional crises, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose spectacle over statesmanship—performing ritual, invoking civilisational grievance, and publicly playing the damru at Somnath. The image has since been widely circulated as an assertion of cultural confidence. It deserves instead to be read as a metaphor for governance by distraction.

This is not an argument against faith, ritual, or history. It is an argument about timing, responsibility, and the deliberate substitution of symbolic performance for political accountability.

From Governance to Spectacle

The Somnath Swabhiman Parv was framed as a commemoration of “a thousand years of resilience” since Mahmud of Ghazni’s attack on the temple in 1026. The Prime Minister described Somnath’s history not as one of defeat but of reconstruction, casting present-day India as the triumphant inheritor of that legacy.

Yet what was conspicuously absent from this civilisational narrative was the contemporary Indian citizen—breathing toxic air, facing institutional discrimination, losing statutory rights, and witnessing a steady erosion of constitutional norms. The Prime Minister’s public calendar that week revealed an unmistakable choice: to foreground ritualised nationalism while remaining silent on urgent material crises.

Delhi: A Capital Reduced to a Slow-Motion Gas Chamber

As the Prime Minister performed aarti in Gujarat, India’s capital was experiencing a severe public health emergency. Delhi’s air pollution levels—particularly PM2.5 and PM10—had once again crossed hazardous thresholds, with medical studies equating daily exposure to smoking approximately 25 cigarettes a day. This is not metaphorical exaggeration; it is epidemiological fact.

Pollution-related illnesses claim over 10,000 lives annually in Delhi alone. Infants, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions face irreversible harm. Roads have effectively become open-air gas chambers—laden with nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and ground-level ozone. Yet there was no national address, no emergency mobilisation, no Prime Ministerial acknowledgement commensurate with the scale of the crisis.

Silence, here, is policy.

Foreign Policy Without Voice or Vision

India’s external posture during this period was equally revealing. As the United States escalated military action in Venezuela and signalled broader geopolitical aggression—from West Asia to the Arctic—India’s response was notable primarily for its absence. Tariffs on Indian goods were sharply raised by the US; public claims were made that India had reduced Russian oil purchases under American pressure; major corporate actors confirmed compliance. The government neither rebutted these assertions nor articulated an independent position.

This is a far cry from non-alignment, strategic autonomy, or even pragmatic realism. It suggests instead a foreign policy hollowed out of confidence, where silence is mistaken for stability.

Merit, Majoritarianism, and Institutional Capture

The decision by the National Medical Commission to scrap MBBS admissions at the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence illustrates how institutional authority is increasingly shaped by majoritarian pressure rather than regulatory consistency.

The official justification—faculty shortages, inadequate infrastructure, low bed occupancy—raises a fundamental question: why were these deficiencies deemed acceptable when permission was granted months earlier? The answer lies outside the inspection report.

Of the first batch of 50 students admitted strictly through NEET merit, an overwhelming majority were Muslim. This triggered protests by religious organisations claiming that a shrine-funded institution should prioritise Hindus. Political mobilisation followed. Inspection followed mobilisation. Cancellation followed inspection.

Merit was not defeated by incompetence; it was defeated by identity.

Caste Violence Without National Outrage

In Meerut, a Dalit woman was murdered for resisting sexual harassment; her daughter abducted. The brutality of the crime was compounded by its predictability. Such violence has become routine, administratively managed rather than politically confronted. Compensation was announced, police teams deployed—but there was no Prime Ministerial condemnation, no national reckoning.

The contrast is instructive. When history is invoked at Somnath, it is framed as collective humiliation. When Dalits are murdered, it is treated as local law and order.

Sport, Nationalism, and Electoral Calculations

The BCCI’s instruction to release Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafizur Rahman amid rising nationalist hysteria further illustrates how institutions bend under ideological pressure. The consequence—Bangladesh withdrawing from sporting engagements in India—damages regional diplomacy and undermines India’s credibility as a host of global events.

This was not a sporting decision; it was a political concession, facilitated by state silence and electoral calculation, particularly in the context of West Bengal.

The Strategic Use of History as Distraction

The invocation of Somnath’s destruction and reconstruction is not historically innocent. It is a political technique—reviving civilisational grievance to displace present accountability. By portraying dissenters as “appeasers” and critics as inheritors of colonial or foreign sympathies, the government reframes governance failures as cultural conflict.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s reservations about state involvement in temple reconstruction were constitutional, not civilisationally hostile. To retrospectively delegitimise that position is to reject the very idea of a secular republic.

Nero Revisited

The comparison with Nero is not rhetorical excess; it is analytical. Nero’s crime, as legend remembers it, was not merely indifference but misplacement of attention—art and performance elevated above governance during catastrophe.

Playing the damru is not inherently objectionable. Doing so while the republic confronts environmental collapse, institutional communalisation, caste violence, diplomatic erosion, and the dilution of labour rights is.

The crisis in India today is not of faith. It is of governance.

And history is unforgiving toward rulers who mistake spectacle for leadership.

References  

1. National Medical Commission, Inspection Report of SMVD Institute of Medical Excellence, January 2026

2. NMC Act, 2019; UGMSR Regulations, 2023

3. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Daily AQI Bulletins, Winter 2025–26

4. World Health Organization, Air Pollution and Child Health (2018)

5. NCRB, Crime in India Reports (latest available)

6. Times of India, coverage of Somnath Swabhiman Parv, January 2026

7. The Hindu, reports on Meerut Dalit murder and abduction, January 2026

8. Indian Express, NMC action against SMVD Medical College

9. BBC / Al Jazeera, India–Bangladesh relations and IPL controversy

10. Economic Times, India–Venezuela trade and oil exposure analysis

11. Christophe Jaffrelot, Hindu Nationalism: A Reader

12. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, writings on symbolism and governance

13. Romila Thapar, Somnatha: The Many Voices of a History

14. Amartya Sen, Democracy as Public Reason

 

 

Reform or Restoration? Arya Samaj, Caste, and the Making of Modern Hindu Nationalism

-Ramphal Kataria

Independence Without Emancipation: Caste, Class, and the Limits of Indian Nationalism

Abstract

This article critically examines the Arya Samaj (1875) as a nineteenth-century Hindu reform movement that sought to modernise Hinduism while preserving its foundational hierarchies. It argues that the Arya Samaj’s selective reformism—grounded in Vedic infallibility and Varna ideology—failed to dismantle caste oppression and instead contributed to the consolidation of Hindu communal identity. Drawing on B R Ambedkar’s critique and the works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Romila Thapar, Gail Omvedt, and Christophe Jaffrelot, the article situates the Arya Samaj within the genealogy of Hindu revivalism and demonstrates its ideological continuity with contemporary Hindutva politics.

1. Introduction: Reform without Rupture

The Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in Bombay in 1875, is often celebrated as a progressive Hindu reform movement that challenged superstition, ritualism, and priestly dominance. Yet, its historical significance lies less in radical social transformation and more in its role as an ideological mediator between colonial modernity and Hindu revivalism.

This article argues that the Arya Samaj represented reform without rupture—a project that modernised Hindu self-representation while leaving intact the core structures of caste hierarchy and religious supremacy. By recasting Hinduism as rational, monotheistic, and Vedic, the movement defended Hindu social order against colonial critique and missionary intervention, while simultaneously laying the foundations for modern Hindu nationalism.¹

2. Colonial Context and the Arya Samaj’s Intellectual Project

The late nineteenth century marked a profound crisis for Brahmanical Hindu authority. Christian missionaries, Orientalist scholars, and colonial administrators subjected Hindu practices to unprecedented scrutiny, portraying them as irrational, superstitious, and morally inferior.²

Dayanand Saraswati’s response was neither wholesale acceptance nor rejection of modernity. Instead, he sought to reconstitute Hinduism from within, anchoring it exclusively in the Vedas, which he proclaimed eternal, infallible, and scientific. In Satyarth Prakash, he rejected Puranic traditions, idol worship, and popular devotional practices, while asserting that all true knowledge—including scientific truth—originated in the Vedas.³

As Romila Thapar has noted, such revivalist projects often involved the construction of a singular, homogenised Hinduism out of diverse and historically contested traditions.⁴ This process was not merely theological but deeply political, as it transformed Hinduism into a coherent civilisational identity capable of collective mobilisation.

3. Caste Reform or Caste Preservation?

3.1 Varna versus Caste: A False Distinction

The Arya Samaj opposed birth-based caste discrimination but defended Chaturvarnya, arguing that social divisions should be based on merit (guna) and occupation (karma). This distinction between caste and Varna has frequently been interpreted as evidence of the movement’s progressive intent.

However, as B R Ambedkar argued forcefully, this distinction is conceptually untenable and politically misleading. Retaining the categories of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra—even under a merit-based framework—inevitably reproduces hierarchy. These labels are historically saturated with meanings of purity, pollution, and inherited privilege, which cannot simply be redefined away.⁵

For Ambedkar, genuine reform requires the destruction of caste categories themselves, not their reinterpretation.

3.2 Ambedkar’s Systemic Critique of Chaturvarnya

Ambedkar’s critique of the Arya Samaj’s Varna ideology operates on multiple levels:

First, he demonstrates the impracticality of classifying individuals into four fixed social categories. Human capacities are too diverse and fluid for such rigid classification. The historical fragmentation of four Varnas into thousands of castes itself exposes the failure of Varna theory.⁶

Second, Ambedkar argues that Chaturvarnya cannot survive without coercive enforcement. Religious texts such as the Manusmriti and narratives like the killing of Shambuka in the Ramayana reveal that Varna order historically depended on violent penal sanctions.⁷

Third, Ambedkar exposes Chaturvarnya as a system of structural oppression. Shudras were denied education, arms, and property—the three essential means of emancipation. What was presented as a division of labour was in reality a division of power designed to permanently disable the lower orders.⁸

Finally, Ambedkar rejects the Arya Samaj’s claim that caste is a later distortion of Hinduism. For him, caste is sanctified by Hindu religious doctrine itself. As long as the Vedas are treated as infallible, social equality remains impossible.⁹

From this perspective, the Arya Samaj’s reformism offered Dalits moral uplift without material or political empowerment.

4. Social Reform and Upper-Caste Anxiety

The Arya Samaj did advocate widow remarriage, opposed child marriage, and promoted women’s education. These reforms were significant but limited in scope. They largely addressed concerns internal to upper-caste Hindu society, particularly its respectability under colonial rule.¹⁰

Unlike the radical anti-caste movements led by Jyotiba Phule or later by Periyar, the Arya Samaj refused to confront Brahminism as a system of domination. Gail Omvedt notes that such reform movements sought to improve Hindu society without challenging upper-caste control over land, labour, and knowledge.¹¹

Dalit exploitation, landlessness, and exclusion from education and power remained marginal to the Arya Samaj’s agenda.

5. From Reform to Communal Mobilisation

By the late nineteenth century, the Arya Samaj increasingly shifted its focus from internal reform to external religious assertion.

5.1 Shuddhi and the Politics of Religious Boundaries

The Shuddhi (reconversion) movement sought to “reclaim” Hindus who had converted to Islam or Christianity—often Dalits and Adivasis escaping caste oppression. Conversion was reframed as betrayal, and Hinduism was reconstructed as a closed, embattled community.¹²

This marked a decisive shift: social inequality within Hinduism was subordinated to the defence of Hindu religious boundaries.

5.2 Cow Protection and Anti-Islamic Polemics

Cow protection campaigns and Dayanand’s sharp critiques of Islam in Satyarth Prakash further intensified communal antagonism. These movements transformed theological disagreement into political hostility, contributing to communal riots and hardened identities.

Christophe Jaffrelot argues that such mobilisation converted religious identity into a political category, laying the groundwork for organised Hindu nationalism.¹³

Jawaharlal Nehru captured this contradiction when he described the Arya Samaj as both reformist and revivalist—progressive in method but conservative in orientation.¹⁴

6. Arya Samaj and the Genealogy of Hindutva

Although the Arya Samaj did not explicitly advocate a Hindu state, its ideological legacy is deeply embedded in Hindutva politics:

Vedic infallibility → cultural nationalism

Shuddhi → ghar wapsi

Cow protection → moral vigilantism

Defence of Hinduism → Hindu Rashtra

The movement normalised the idea of Hinduism as a singular, superior civilisation under threat—an assumption central to Hindutva ideology.¹⁵

In contemporary India, Arya Samaj institutions often function as cultural legitimizers of majoritarian politics, providing a rationalist vocabulary to exclusionary nationalism.

7. Conclusion: Reform without Emancipation

The Arya Samaj represents a paradigmatic case of reform without emancipation. It modernised Hinduism without democratising it, challenged ritual without dismantling hierarchy, and mobilised reason in the service of religious supremacy.

As Ambedkar warned, reform that refuses to annihilate caste merely rearranges inequality. In this sense, the Arya Samaj did not fail inadvertently; it succeeded in preserving Hindu social order under the guise of reform.

Understanding this legacy is essential in an era where Hindutva increasingly defines national identity. Without the destruction of caste and religious supremacy, reform becomes not a path to justice but a mechanism of domination.

References

1.     Ambedkar, B R (2014): Annihilation of Caste, Navayana.

2.     Ambedkar, B R (1948): The Untouchables, Thacker.

3.     Hansen, T B (1999): The Saffron Wave, Princeton University Press.

4.     Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996): The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, Penguin.

5.     Jaffrelot, Christophe (2007): Hindu Nationalism: A Reader, Princeton University Press.

6.     Jones, Kenneth W (1976): Arya Dharm, University of California Press.

7.     Nehru, Jawaharlal (1946): The Discovery of India, Oxford University Press.

8.     Omvedt, Gail (1994): Dalits and the Democratic Revolution, Sage.

9.   Pandey, Gyanendra (1990): The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, OUP.

10.  Saraswati, Dayanand ([1875] 1984): Satyarth Prakash.

11.  Thapar, Romila (1989): Interpreting Early India, OUP.

12.  Thapar, Romila (2009): The Past as Present, Aleph.

Dismantling the Aravallis: Ecology, State Power and the Political Economy of Environmental Destruction

 

-Ramphal Kataria

Old Mountains, New Laws: Judicial Reasoning and the Ecological Fate of the Aravallis

Abstract

The Aravalli Range, one of the oldest surviving mountain systems in the world, plays a foundational role in the ecological, hydrological, and climatic stability of north-western India. Despite early judicial recognition of its importance, the range has been steadily degraded through mining, urban expansion, and administrative reclassification. This article examines the geological origins and ecological functions of the Aravallis, situates them within India’s civilizational history, and critically analyses the role of successive governments and judicial institutions in enabling their fragmentation. Focusing on the Supreme Court’s 2025 height-based definition of the Aravallis and its subsequent stay, the article argues that the destruction of the range reflects a deeper failure of environmental governance rooted in extractive political economy and technocratic legal reasoning divorced from ecological science.

1. Introduction

The relationship between natural resources and state power has long shaped the trajectory of civilizations. In contemporary India, this relationship has acquired renewed urgency as ecological systems are increasingly subordinated to extractive development models. The Aravalli Range—among the world’s oldest mountain systems—provides a critical lens through which to examine this contradiction.

Stretching across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, the Aravallis function as a climatic barrier, groundwater recharge zone, and biodiversity corridor sustaining a vast population. Yet, despite repeated judicial interventions and scientific warnings, the range has been progressively dismantled through mining, real estate expansion, and administrative erasure. This article argues that the degradation of the Aravallis is not an accidental by-product of development but the outcome of sustained institutional failure, where state policy, market interests, and judicial ambivalence converge.

2. Geological Genesis and Physical Character

The Aravalli Range originated during the Proterozoic Eon (approximately 1.8–2.5 billion years ago) through the Aravalli–Delhi Orogeny, when ancient continental blocks—the Marwar and Bundelkhand cratons—collided.¹ Once towering fold mountains, they have been reduced by prolonged erosion to residual ranges, with Guru Shikhar (1,722 m) on Mount Abu as the highest surviving peak.

The range is composed primarily of metamorphic and igneous rocks—gneiss, quartzite, schist, granite, and marble—formed under extreme pressure and temperature. The Malani Igneous Suite, among the largest volcanic provinces globally, underscores the geological uniqueness of the region and has been designated a National Geological Monument.²

Unlike the Himalayas, which continue to rise due to active tectonics, the Aravallis are tectonically stable. Their significance therefore lies not in elevation but in continuity, permeability, and hydrological function—characteristics that render them particularly vulnerable to fragmentation-based legal definitions.

3. Geographical and Ecological Significance

Extending roughly 670–800 km in a northeast–southwest direction, the Aravallis form a natural divide between the Thar Desert and the Indo-Gangetic plains. Their ecological functions are multiple and interdependent.

First, the range acts as a barrier against desertification by reducing wind velocity and preventing the eastward movement of sand from the Thar Desert.³ Second, it constitutes a major groundwater recharge zone, particularly for the Delhi-NCR region, with recharge rates estimated at up to two million litres per hectare annually.⁴ Third, several rivers—including the Luni, Banas, Sahibi, and Sabarmati—originate in the Aravallis, linking the range directly to downstream water security.

The Aravallis also support dry deciduous forests, scrublands, wetlands, and grasslands that function as wildlife corridors for species such as leopards, hyenas, jackals, and sloth bears. Studies by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) establish a clear correlation between degradation of the range and increased dust storms, declining air quality, groundwater depletion, and rising human–wildlife conflict in adjoining regions.⁵

4. Civilizational and Historical Context

Archaeological evidence situates the Aravallis at the centre of early metallurgical and settlement activity in the subcontinent. Copper mining in the region dates back to at least the fourth millennium BCE, supplying metal to Indus Valley sites such as Kalibangan, Kunal, and Ahar.⁶ Excavations in Tosham and Khanak (Haryana) have revealed furnaces, slag, crucibles, and semi-precious bead industries, indicating advanced metallurgical practices and organised resource extraction.⁷

Historically, the rugged terrain of the Aravallis enabled the construction of strategic fortifications such as Chittorgarh and Kumbhalgarh, while sites like Pushkar and Mount Abu reflect the range’s enduring spiritual significance. The mountains thus represent a long-standing interface between ecology, economy, and culture—an interface increasingly destabilised in the contemporary period.

5. Mining, Encroachment and Administrative Dilution

Despite early recognition of their importance, the Aravallis have been subjected to sustained exploitation. Mining for limestone, marble, granite, and metals expanded rapidly during both colonial and post-colonial periods. Although the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued restrictions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—most notably the 1992 notification limiting mining in Haryana—implementation has remained inconsistent.⁸

Judicial interventions by the Supreme Court in 2003, 2004, and 2009 reaffirmed mining bans and invoked the precautionary principle.⁹ However, these orders were systematically undermined through administrative practices such as non-notification of forest land, manipulation of revenue records, and selective enforcement. In Haryana, large sections of the Aravallis remain legally unclassified, rendering them vulnerable to real estate expansion and industrial use.

A 2018 assessment documented the complete disappearance of 31 hills in Rajasthan due to illegal quarrying, highlighting the irreversible nature of the damage already inflicted.¹⁰ The persistence of such destruction despite judicial prohibitions points to a governance failure rather than regulatory absence.

6. Judicial Redefinition and the 100-Metre Controversy

In November 2025, the Supreme Court adopted a height-based definition of the Aravalli Hills as landforms rising at least 100 metres above local relief. Environmental groups and geologists argued that this criterion ignored geological continuity and ecological function, potentially stripping legal protection from nearly 90% of the range due to its ancient, eroded character.¹¹

Following widespread public opposition, the Court stayed its own order in December 2025, constituted a high-powered expert committee, and imposed a freeze on new mining leases pending the preparation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM).¹² As of January 2026, the ban remains in force.

This episode exposes a recurring tension in Indian environmental jurisprudence: reliance on technocratic and reductionist definitions that prioritise administrative clarity over ecological science, often necessitating corrective intervention after substantial damage has already occurred.

7. Ecological and Social Consequences

The degradation of the Aravallis has produced cascading ecological and social impacts. Groundwater levels in mining-intensive zones have declined by 10–15 metres, exacerbating water scarcity across Haryana and Rajasthan.¹³ Loss of vegetative cover has intensified dust storms and worsened air quality in Delhi-NCR, contributing to respiratory illnesses, including silicosis, among mining-affected communities.¹⁴

Habitat fragmentation threatens biodiversity and disrupts wildlife corridors, while unchecked urbanisation heightens human–wildlife conflict. These outcomes collectively undermine the ecological resilience of north-western India and increase vulnerability to climate extremes.

8. Conclusion

The dismantling of the Aravalli Range reflects not a failure of scientific knowledge but a failure of governance. Successive governments have prioritised extractive growth and short-term revenue over ecological sustainability, while judicial interventions have remained episodic and largely reactive. Height-based legal classifications and fragmented enforcement mechanisms have enabled the systematic erosion of one of India’s most critical ecological systems.

Effective protection of the Aravallis requires a shift from reductionist definitions to landscape-level ecological governance, the establishment of a statutory conservation authority, and accountability for past violations. The fate of the Aravallis ultimately raises a broader question: whether India’s development trajectory can reconcile economic growth with the preservation of the ecological foundations upon which that growth depends.

References

1.     Valdiya, K S (2016): The Making of India: Geodynamic Evolution, Springer.

2.     Geological Survey of India (2019): “National Geological Monuments of India.”

3.     Central Arid Zone Research Institute (2018): Desertification and Wind Erosion in North-West India.

4.     Central Ground Water Board (2020): Groundwater Recharge Assessment for NCR.

5.     Wildlife Institute of India (2018): Impact of Land-Use Change in the Aravalli Landscape.

6.     Possehl, G L (2002): The Indus Civilization, AltaMira Press.

7.     Singh, R N et al (2017): “Copper Mining and Metallurgy in the Tosham Hills,” Indian Archaeology Review.

8.     Ministry of Environment and Forests (1992): Notification under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

9.     M C Mehta v Union of India, Supreme Court Orders (2003, 2004, 2009).

10.  Centre for Science and Environment (2018): Rajasthan’s Vanishing Hills.

11.  Supreme Court of India (2025): Order dated November 2025 on Aravalli definition.

12.  Supreme Court of India (2025): Order dated December 2025 staying earlier definition.

13.  Central Ground Water Board (2021): Groundwater Depletion in Mining Regions.

14.  National Institute of Occupational Health (2019): Silicosis among Mine Workers in North India.

Federation versus Freedom Revisited: Ambedkar’s Constitutional Anxiety and the Majoritarian Turn in Contemporary India

-Ramphal Kataria

Federalism Failed, the Centre Captured: Ambedkar’s Nightmare in Contemporary India

Abstract

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Federation versus Freedom represents one of the most sophisticated critiques of federalism in a socially stratified society. Contrary to romanticized notions of decentralization, Ambedkar warned that in a deeply hierarchical and caste-ridden social order like India, federal autonomy could empower local elites, reinforce feudal and caste domination, and undermine the freedom of marginalized communities. Consequently, he argued for a strong Union capable of enforcing constitutional morality, social justice, and individual rights. Simultaneously, Ambedkar remained acutely aware of the dangers of excessive centralization, cautioning that a powerful Centre, if captured by majoritarian or authoritarian forces, could itself become a threat to liberty. This paper critically analyzes Ambedkar’s federal philosophy in light of India’s constitutional experience after Independence, with particular focus on the last decade. It argues that the contemporary Indian state reflects the tragic realization of Ambedkar’s dual fear: the erosion of federal balance on one hand, and the consolidation of a majoritarian, centralized, and coercive Union on the other. The paper demonstrates how institutions once envisaged as safeguards—Parliament, central agencies, media, and even the higher judiciary—have increasingly functioned to normalize majoritarian dominance, curtail dissent, and weaken constitutional protections for minorities, Dalits, and political opposition.

I. Ambedkar’s Philosophy of Federation: Freedom Before Federalism

Ambedkar’s intervention in the debate on federalism was fundamentally shaped by India’s social reality, not by abstract constitutional theory. Unlike the American or Swiss federations—formed by relatively homogeneous units coming together voluntarily—India was, in Ambedkar’s words, a society “graded in inequality,” fractured by caste, religion, language, and region.

For Ambedkar, federalism was not inherently democratic. In a hierarchical society, decentralization risked transferring power from colonial rulers to upper-caste, landed, and dominant local elites, thereby reproducing oppression at the provincial and village levels. His apprehension was clear:

“Political power in the hands of the village is likely to become a weapon of tyranny.”

Thus, Ambedkar prioritized individual freedom and social justice over provincial autonomy. The Constitution’s design—strong Union, residuary powers with the Centre, emergency provisions, All-India Services, and a powerful judiciary—reflected this belief. The Indian Union was deliberately made indestructible, with no right to secession, because Ambedkar feared that weak central authority would spell disaster for minorities and Dalits.

II. The Core Contradiction: Central Power as Protector and Predator

Ambedkar’s thought contains a profound dialectical tension. While he trusted the Centre more than the provinces to protect the oppressed, he also warned that central authority itself could become tyrannical if monopolized by a dominant majority.

This contradiction is not accidental but rooted in Ambedkar’s realism. He recognized that constitutional safeguards are only as strong as the political morality of those who wield power. Hence, his insistence on:

an independent judiciary,

constitutional morality over popular morality, and

checks on executive dominance.

Ambedkar did not advocate blind centralization; he advocated a constitutional Union constrained by law.

III. From Constitutional Union to Majoritarian Centre: The Last Decade

The last decade in India demonstrates how Ambedkar’s fears regarding the Centre itself becoming an instrument of domination are being realized.

1. Majoritarianism and the Targeting of Minorities

India’s constitutional promise of fraternity has been increasingly replaced by a civilizational-nationalist narrative, identifying the nation with a singular religious identity.

Muslims have been subjected to lynchings in the name of cow protection, discriminatory citizenship regimes (CAA-NRC discourse), bulldozer demolitions following communal violence, and selective policing.

Christians face intensified attacks on places of worship, criminalization through anti-conversion laws, and social intimidation.

North-Eastern communities continue to experience racialized violence and cultural marginalization.

Dalits face rising atrocities, dilution of labor protections, and criminalization of protest movements.

These developments confirm Ambedkar’s warning that political democracy without social democracy degenerates into tyranny of the majority.

IV. Criminalization of Dissent and Collapse of Free Speech

Ambedkar viewed free speech as the lifeblood of democracy. Today, dissent is increasingly equated with sedition or conspiracy.

Academics, students, journalists, and activists have been charged under UAPA and sedition laws, often without timely trials.

Cases such as Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam illustrate the erosion of the presumption of innocence. The denial of bail despite prolonged incarceration reflects a punitive, not judicial, logic.

Journalists and media platforms critical of the government face raids, arrests, and economic strangulation.

This mirrors Ambedkar’s fear that constitutional rights could be rendered hollow through procedural coercion.

V. Central Agencies as Instruments of Political Control

Institutions designed as autonomous—CBI, ED, Income Tax Department—have increasingly functioned as tools of political intimidation.

Opposition leaders face disproportionate investigations.

Defections are frequently preceded by agency pressure.

The Election Commission, once a pillar of credibility, is now widely perceived as partisan, particularly in its handling of electoral violations and scheduling.

Ambedkar’s insistence on institutional independence was precisely to prevent this fusion of executive power with coercive machinery.

VI. Judiciary: From Constitutional Sentinel to Strategic Silence

Ambedkar placed extraordinary faith in the judiciary as the final arbiter of constitutional morality. However, the last decade reveals a troubling pattern:

Landmark cases of immense political consequence—Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid, abrogation of Article 370, Electoral Bonds—have largely validated executive actions.

Delays in hearing habeas corpus petitions and civil liberties cases contrast sharply with urgency shown in matters aligned with state priorities.

Judicial appointments and post-retirement sinecures have raised serious questions about institutional independence.

The judiciary’s reluctance to confront executive excess has weakened Ambedkar’s envisioned balance of power.

VII. Economic Concentration and Democratic Hollowing

Ambedkar understood that political equality without economic equality is a sham. The contemporary Indian economy exhibits:

Extreme concentration of wealth among a few corporate groups,

State-facilitated privatization of public assets,

Electoral Bonds enabling opaque corporate funding, overwhelmingly favoring the ruling party.

With over ₹10,000 crore flowing disproportionately to the ruling party, the notion of a level democratic playing field stands fundamentally compromised.

VIII. Federalism Undermined: States as Administrative Subordinates

Ironically, while Ambedkar feared excessive state autonomy, contemporary India has witnessed the hollowing out of states themselves:

Centralization of fiscal powers through GST,

Use of Governors as political instruments,

Imposition of centrally driven laws overriding state consent.

This is not cooperative federalism but executive federalism, where states are reduced to implementing arms of the Centre.

IX. Conclusion: Ambedkar’s Tragic Vindication

Ambedkar’s Federation versus Freedom was not merely a constitutional argument; it was a moral warning. The Indian experiment today reflects the worst realization of his dual anxieties:

Federalism has not empowered the oppressed;

The Centre, instead of acting as their protector, has increasingly functioned as an instrument of majoritarian domination.

Ambedkar’s choice of a Union of States, distinct from classical federations, was an attempt to navigate India’s social realities. Yet, without constitutional morality, even this carefully calibrated structure cannot prevent democratic decay.

The last decade demonstrates that the greatest threat to Indian democracy today is not federalism or centralism per se, but the capture of the state by a homogenizing, majoritarian ideology—precisely the outcome Ambedkar feared.

References

1. Ambedkar, B.R. Federation versus Freedom.

2. Ambedkar, B.R. Pakistan or the Partition of India.

3. Constituent Assembly Debates (1946–49).

4. Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation.

5. Baxi, Upendra. The Crisis of the Indian Legal System.

6. Reports by PUCL, Amnesty International India, and Human Rights Watch.

7. Supreme Court judgments on Article 370, Ram Janmabhoomi, Electoral Bonds.