Why India’s Constitution Still Matters: Federalism, Secularism And The Fight Over “We the People”

The dawn of the Constitution of India arrived with the pronoun “We” set firmly as its very first word. Who, after all, bestowed this Constitution upon us if not we ourselves? Even those born the day after November 26, 1949, still invoke its opening: “We, the People of India”. It lingers in the mind that this idea that we give these rules to ourselves.

Debate continues over the rigidity and flexibility of a document inked seventy-six years ago, while successive governments keep pressing amendments into that original “we”. Today, the government also seeks to define how to separate “they” from “we”.

Several senior BJP leaders repeatedly declared during the 2024 Lok Sabha election that the NDA required more than 400 seats “to change the Constitution”. When the BJP fell to 240 seats, the opposition turned this into a central campaign theme in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and Delhi, accusing the party of seeking to abolish reservations and impose the principles of the Manusmriti.

The Outlook issue of 21 June 2024 'The Winner Is The Constitution Of India' returned to a striking image from the general election: the coat-pocket edition of The Constitution of India, edited by Gopal Sankaranarayanan and published by Eastern Book Company, highlighted by Outlook editor Chinki Sinha in The Little Red Book. Whether or not people have read it in full is beside the point. What matters is that it exists, that it must be protected, and that the election showed one thing clearly — ‘we, the people of India’, care about our Constitution.

Himanta Biswa Sarma, like many others, appears unaware of the many editions of the Constitution—each reflecting the diversity of India and the varied meanings attached to its colours. On May 17, 2024, he tweeted that the Constitution of India is published only in a blue book, and suggested that the version Rahul Gandhi was holding needed verification. By the next day, he claimed it was the Chinese Constitution.

In fact, Gandhi was holding our Constitution, the book which defines us as a nation.

At a rally on 17 May, Gandhi said: “…if the poor, OBCs, Dalits and tribal communities have gained anything, it is because of this book—our Constitution. If you have employment, daily wages, the public sector and reservations, it is all because of this book. Before it, India offered no rights to you. This book protects everyone: OBCs, minorities, tribal communities and general castes. And the BJP wants to tear it apart. This book is the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru…”

This also raises the recurring question of why “federalism” is treated as a constitutional term even though it does not appear in the text. Outlook explored this in its piece “Altered Federalism”. Vivek Menezes argues for stronger federalism through better inter-state coordination in “Size Matters: Why Tiny Goa Needs To Be Heard More Often”. And Harish Khare, in “Right in the Centre: The New Power Structure in Dilli Durbar”, notes that India—Bharat—is both a democracy and a kind of empire. The demands of running an empire often collide with the disorder and requirements of democracy, and reconciling the two is at the heart of Indian statecraft.

The discussion around what is permissible and not permissible continue to shape the  country even today.

In the same context, Sudhirendar Sharma examines the divide between the South and the Centre, and the ongoing struggle over federalism. He argues that Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu, led alternately for more than six decades by the DMK and AIADMK, has consistently positioned itself as a staunch defender of state autonomy against real or perceived “central overreach”.

Is India a nation, or a union of states? Where does the balance between Centre and State truly lie? And do the elections in five states, with regional parties asserting themselves, reflect a healthy expression of federalism?

Yet Centre–State relations are once again strained. Non-BJP-ruled states are attempting to build a united front, though internal tensions remain significant. Against this backdrop, the articles in this edition seek to unravel the complex layers of India’s federal system.

Outlook explored a related theme in its 2022 issue on secularism, “The Secularism Question”, which revisited how the concept has frayed over time, particularly since the amendments of the Indira Gandhi era. Ashtosh Bhardwaj probes the paradox at the heart of Indian secularism, asking: what form should secularism take in a deeply religious society? And can one expect a believer to set aside their faith the moment they enter government?

Rakhi Bose, meanwhile, confronts the idea of “competitive communalism” and the search for a secularism that genuinely suits India’s diverse reality.

Ajay Gudavarthy notes that secularism was one of the most thoroughly debated subjects among the framers of the Indian Constitution. They were deeply concerned about the impact of Partition and how best to safeguard the fundamental rights of religious minorities. The idea of secularism shifted between providing procedural justice for minorities and maintaining a ‘principled distance’ between religion and politics.

Ultimately, however, what the Constitution becomes lies not only in the hands of governments but in the hands of the country itself. And a country is defined not by borders, but by its people, as a former Prime Minister once said. The game of power will continue; governments will rise and fall; parties will form and dissolve. But the nation must endure, and its democracy must endure.

And for this reason, the Constitution, which is rigid yet flexible, should remain in the hands of those who pledge to be the smallest but strongest pillars of this country.