Prime Minister Narendra Modi today (February 4) sought to redefine constitutionalism, crafting a frame of reference without the essential attributes like justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
Replying to the debate on the motion of thanks to the president’s address in the Lok Sabha, the prime minister asserted that he embodied constitutional spirit, giving several examples to buttress his argument. Claiming that “Hum samvidhan ko jeete hain (we live by the constitution),” Modi gave examples, “When we were celebrating golden jubilee of Gujarat, I as the chief minister ordered compilation of speeches of all the speeches of governors. That book is available in libraries. This deals with governors’ speeches made during previous (Congress) governments also. That’s called constitutional spirit. Some families had made their museums in Delhi. I turned them into the prime ministers’ museum.”
He added, “Now every prime minister’s life-sketch and achievements are showcased there. No party had won enough seats in 2014 to earn the Leader of Opposition post but we invited the leader of the largest Opposition party for selection of election commissioners. Earlier governments didn’t have any such panels. We made the biggest statue of Sardar Patel, who was not a leader of the RSS or Jan Sangh. That’s because Hum Samvidhan ko jeete hain.”
Other examples the prime minister gave to substantiate his claim of upholding the constitutional spirit and deepening democracy include setting up separate ministries for North-East, skill development and cooperatives. He also presented non-discrimination in welfare schemes as an endorsement of his democratic credentials.
Also read: Modi Invokes ‘Sheesh Mahal’, ‘AAPda’ in Lok Sabha On Delhi Election Eve
Modi’s arguments came as a rebuttal of opposition leaders’ criticism of his government for undermining the constitution. This criticism emanated basically from the widespread perception that the constitutional principles of equality, justice, liberty and fraternity were being strangled in Modi regime and the autonomy of key democratic institutions was getting deliberately crushed. While secularism, part of the basic structure of the constitution, was rendered an undesirable concept, cries of Hindu Rashtra and acerbic calls for subjugating minorities dominated public discourse.
While the majoritarian project of establishing religious and cultural supremacy of Hindus appeared to have governmental sanction, Opposition parties screamed against capture and weakening of institutions like the Election Commission, judiciary, media, parliament, CAG and various central agencies. Misuse of investigative agencies against political opponents, illegal surveillance and suppression of free speech became routine. Some BJP leaders went so far as to publicly seek 400 seats in the last election to be able to change the constitution. But Modi tried to tell the nation that publishing governor’s speeches and building statues were credible evidence of his unflinching commitment to the constitutional scheme.
What Indian’s constitution entails is not open to dispute. It’s about maximising people’s freedoms and protecting their rights. It’s about equality and justice. It’s about creating space for dissent and protecting minority’s wishes. While many international agencies have talked about diminishing democracy in India, the dominant discourse within the country has been the absence of democratic accountability and responses. But it is clear the prime minister has a different understanding of democracy and constitution and he asserted that his politics was meant for “santushtikaran (satisfaction)”, not “tushtikaran (appeasement)”. He argued that real secularism and social justice were reflected in non-discriminatory implementation of government schemes; he presented abolition of triple talaq as justice for Muslim women, ignoring the prevailing atmosphere of fear in the community.
The prime minister appeared animated by a desperation to counter the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s charge that the presidential address betrayed an absence of a roadmap for India’s future. He made a pathetic attempt to deal with the contention that his government lacked strategic vision by relying on inverted snobbery, which saw him highlight his pet theme of toilet-construction and drinking water project.
Also read: Delhi Election 2025: Why is Rahul Gandhi Attacking Arvind Kejriwal?
He advertised the mixing of ethanol with petrol as proof of his scientific creativity, without realising that developed countries, particularly China, had achieved astonishing success in both infrastructure and technology. He appeared happy with India’s current status in the use of Artificial Intelligence – even as China had jolted the United States with DeepSeek – and insisted that the growing global demands for Indian tea, coffee, turmeric processed seafood and makhana showcased our rapid advancement. It is difficult to guess whether he has been wrongly briefed by his science and technology advisers, economists and foreign policy experts or he genuinely believes India was doing well to compete with the developed nations.
His entire speech appeared influenced by Gandhi’s incisive arguments about changing technology, failed make-in-India project and the absence of strategic vision. Instead of acknowledging the deficiencies in a socio-political ambiance where the national discourse is caught in a vortex of non-issues and religious frenzy, he erred by projecting decisions like mixing of ethanol as hi-tech achievement.
He said Rs 1 lakh crore was saved by mixing ethanol without explaining whether this could have prompted the government to lower the prices of petrol-diesel which touched Rs 100 after his arrival. He also talked of gaming, as if that was enough to counter China that dominates manufacturing and has established its supremacy with such exceptional initiatives like the belt and road project. He did not respond to Gandhi’s observation about lack of data that renders use of AI meaningless. But he countered the Congress leader’s questions on social justice by asking whether three members of any SC or ST family ever became members of parliament in the history of independent India. That was an attack on the Gandhi family which has three members – Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in parliament now.
Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.
