Independence Day Today and the Indian Citizen
TODAY, as we observe our seventy-ninth Independence Day, it is extremely useful to revisit the proceedings of our Constituent Assembly. The Assembly was comprised primarily of Indian freedom fighters who were deeply in grips with our history, social realities, cultural traditions, and, of course, the broader currents of historical human progress and the contemporary world.
The historical challenge before them was framed by two principal questions: How to build a forward-looking, progressive State for such a vast population with such immense diversity?
They arrived at a unique solution – placing citizenship at the very heart of the entire exercise. They concluded that independent India would have a common and equal citizenship for all, regardless of its multiple and multilayered diversities.
The Preamble of the Constitution then followed, galvanising the conceptual basis:
“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”
To translate the vision of the Preamble into reality, it was natural to ensure a democratic system in which every citizen shared a sense of belonging in forming a representative government – one chosen by the people through individual suffrage. The Constituent Assembly debates make it clear that the framers concluded that the appropriate form of government for India would not be a presidential form, but a cabinet system within a Parliamentary form of government.
Accordingly, the Constitution established a Parliamentary form of government that is federal in structure, with certain unitary features. The constitutional head of the Executive of the Union is the President. As per Article 79 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament of the Union consists of the President and two Houses: The Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
By adopting the Parliamentary system, the Constitution then set out to flesh out the electoral process, ensuring universal adult suffrage so that no one would be excluded. In this context, Article 326 was incorporated: “The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.”
Subsequently, the Supreme Court reinforced this universality, specifically affirming that the right to vote is a constitutional right.
Further, the Constitution provided for a strong and independent Election Commission, insulated from the influence of political parties and the executive. This is essential to ensure elections are, and appear to be, free and fair, with a level playing field for all. Accordingly, Article 324 states: “The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in the Election Commission. The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix; and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President. Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine: Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after appointment: Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.”
It is abundantly clear that the constitutional framework underlines universality. Lack of citizenship is the only exception, and the responsibility of determining eligibility does not rest with the Election Commission. From its inception, the Election Commission functioned on two fundamental principles introduced by the first Election Commission: (1) elections must ensure universality, and (2) the onus of being included in the electoral roll should not rest solely on the individual citizen.
Now, however, there is a huge controversy. Its roots lie in the government’s new policy initiatives – beginning with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and followed by the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The CAA proved deeply divisive, widely perceived as discriminatory on the basis of religious identity. Although legislated, it has not been notified, and the NRC process has also stalled. At the heart of the opposition to both measures is the concern that they violate the fundamental precept of common and equal citizenship that the Constitution enshrines.
It is necessary to look at the historical context and the role of the RSS. From its very inception, the RSS refused to accept the Constitution and the democratic, secular republic. Rooted in the Hindu nationalist ideology of a Hindu Rashtra, it was the mirror image of the Islamic nationalism that drove the creation of the Islamic State of Pakistan. Both visions of nationhood and State – based on religious identity – were direct products of the British colonial policy of “divide and rule.” British colonial historians promoted a narrative of India’s past as one of exclusive conflict between Hindus and Muslims. This distorted history, reinforced by the rise of religious identity-driven nationalisms, ultimately led to Partition. The result was to diminish the significance of India’s independence and to leave behind a festering wound.
The framers of the Constitution were duty-bound to reverse this divisive agenda. Yet, 78 years after independence, the RSS continues to pursue its narrow, sectarian, fascistic vision of a Hindu Rashtra as a substitute for the democratic, secular republic. Such is their toxic obsession that a governor aligned with the RSS ideology has insisted on officially observing “Partition Day” on August 14 in Kerala.
Today, the RSS stands at the spearhead of the corporate-communal nexus that drives the present government. This is the fountainhead of neo-fascist tendencies seeking to subvert independent constitutional authorities – overtly and covertly. A case in point is the subterfuge of the Election Commission in attempting to link citizenship question with the right to vote in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Bihar, with plans to replicate it across the country.
Therefore, on this Independence Day, celebrate we must – but in defense of citizenship; in defense of the principle of ‘common and equal citizenship’; in defense of democracy, secularism, federalism, and our ‘unity in diversity’. Let this be our war cry this Independence Day.
(August 13, 2025)
