India's greatest civilisational strength has always been its diversity. Religions, languages, castes, cultures, traditions, costumes and ways of life have coexisted on this ancient land for centuries. Despite these differences, India has survived as one nation, an achievement that continues to fascinate the world. Yet an uncomfortable question confronts us today: Are we becoming more united as a nation, or are we cultivating the poisonous crop of separatism in the fertile fields of political self-interest?
The dream of an Akhand Bharat, an undivided India, cannot be fulfilled merely by preserving geographical boundaries. It requires an undivided national consciousness and an unbroken bond of trust in the hearts of its people. A nation may remain intact on the map while gradually disintegrating in the minds of its citizens. That is the danger we must recognise.
From 1857 to Partition: Lessons We Have Failed to Learn
The Revolt of 1857 remains one of the most compelling illustrations of India's collective strength. Hindus, Muslims and people belonging to different castes and communities united against British rule. Proclamations issued in the name of Bahadur Shah Zafar called upon Hindus and Muslims to fight together against the colonial power. The British recognised the strength of this collective resistance and subsequently pursued policies that increasingly institutionalised communal divisions.
The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 introduced separate electorates for Muslims, giving communal political representation an institutional foundation. The All-India Muslim League was established in Dhaka on December 30, 1906, while the All-India Hindu Mahasabha emerged as an organised political formation in 1915. British colonial patronage, political accommodation and divide-and-rule policies helped deepen communal polarisation and strengthen competing political identities.
India attained independence on August 15, 1947, but freedom came at an appalling human cost. Millions were displaced, and hundreds of thousands lost their lives in the violence accompanying Partition. The Mountbatten Plan of June 3, 1947, and the Indian Independence Act of July 18, 1947, paved the constitutional path for division.
It would, however, be an oversimplification of history to hold any single leader or community solely responsible. British colonial policies, communal politics and the political decisions of the leadership of that period all deserve an objective and impartial examination.
The British eventually departed, but the psychology of division they institutionalised has not entirely disappeared. In many ways, it continues to find nourishment in contemporary politics.
Language and Regionalism: Many Nations Within One Nation?
The growing bitterness over language is another serious challenge to India's national cohesion. The linguistic reorganisation of states under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, gave administrative and cultural recognition to linguistic identities. There was nothing inherently wrong with recognising language as an expression of cultural heritage or as a basis for administrative convenience. The problem begins when pride in one's language becomes contempt for another's.
Article 343 of the Constitution recognises Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, while English continues to be used in accordance with the law. The Eighth Schedule recognises 22 languages. Yet an important question remains: Why is there not an equally serious commitment in Hindi-speaking states to learning southern Indian languages, comparable to the expectation that Hindi be learned in the South?
Can we genuinely aspire to national unity without making an effort to understand one another's languages and cultures?
The languages of southern India possess extraordinary literary, philosophical and cultural traditions. Hindi deserves respect, but that respect cannot be built upon the humiliation or marginalisation of another Indian language. Linguistic pride must become a bridge, not a barricade.
Protection Without Empowerment: When Good Intentions Produce New Divisions
The erosion of national unity is not confined to religious and linguistic politics. Regional and social identities are also increasingly being used to deepen divisions.
Whether it is identity-based tensions among religious communities in parts of southern India, growing friction between tribal and Christian communities in Bastar, or distrust between tribal and non-tribal populations, the answer cannot be confrontation. It must be dialogue, constitutional safeguards and equal justice.
Bastar, which has historically possessed a remarkable tradition of coexistence, cannot afford to become a theatre of social hostility.
Consider the laws enacted to protect tribal land from exploitation and alienation. Their original purpose was entirely legitimate: to prevent the historical dispossession of vulnerable communities. Yet serious questions arise about their implementation.
In numerous instances, tribal landowners are unable to secure a fair and competitive price for their own land because of legal and procedural restrictions. An examination of land-registration records in certain areas reveals distressing instances of tribal land being transferred at disproportionately low prices. Equally troubling is the fact that exploitation is not always perpetrated by outsiders; influential individuals within the same community can also become beneficiaries of such transactions.
Protecting tribal land must not mean depriving tribal owners of legitimate economic choices or fair market value. The solution lies in transparent valuation, adequate compensation, meaningful consent and effective legal safeguards.
Indeed, the ideal policy would be to create such economic opportunities, livelihoods and prosperity that no tribal family is ever compelled by distress to sell its ancestral land.
The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, popularly known as PESA, was enacted to strengthen Gram Sabhas and empower tribal self-governance in Scheduled Areas. It was never intended to become a blanket prohibition on outsiders entering every village in the country or on ordinary people undertaking legitimate economic activities.
Any interpretation or local implementation that creates unnecessary restrictions, confusion or hostility must be examined against the actual provisions and objectives of the law. Protecting tribal self-governance is essential; turning it into a source of hostility towards fellow citizens is not.
Similarly, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to protect communities subjected to historical discrimination and serious social atrocities. Its fundamental purpose must remain uncompromised. At the same time, allegations of misuse, wherever they arise, must be addressed through impartial investigation and due judicial process.
The constitutional balance between protection and equal justice must never be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.
Chhattisgarhiya Versus Outsider: The Dangerous Politics of Regional Pride
The attempt to create a divide between Chhattisgarhiya (the people of Chhattisgarh) and so-called outsiders is equally dangerous.
The slogan “Chhattisgarh Sable Badhia” (Chhattisgarh is the best) is as dear to me as it is to any proud son of this soil. But let us ask an uncomfortable question: Does declaring Chhattisgarhiya the best imply that people from every other Indian state are somehow inferior?
Chhattisgarh produces rice, certain pulses, oilseeds and maize. Yet it depends on other states for numerous varieties of grains, pulses, spices, fruits, dry fruits, fertilisers, seeds, medicines, machinery, vehicles and countless everyday necessities. Its economy is deeply connected with the rest of India. People from Chhattisgarh also migrate to other states for employment, business and education.
Every state complements the others. This mutual interdependence is one of the foundations upon which the Indian Union stands.
If we shut our doors to others today, tomorrow other states may shut their doors to our own people. What would remain then of regional identity, economic prosperity or national solidarity?
Love your soil, celebrate your culture and take pride in your language. But do not sow the seeds of hatred in the name of protecting your homeland.
No individual, institution or political organisation has the right to humiliate or discriminate against a citizen merely because of their state of origin, language, dialect, culture or religion. Unfortunately, such tactics are increasingly being employed to sharpen political identities and polarise voters.
Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution guarantee citizens the right to move freely throughout India and to reside and settle in any part of the country, subject to reasonable constitutional restrictions.
When political ambition becomes dependent upon creating divisions among communities, national unity becomes its first casualty. If we continue sowing the seeds of discrimination and hatred for electoral gains, we should not expect unity even in our villages and neighbourhoods, let alone across the nation.
The Institutions That Made India One
India's unity has not been sustained by slogans alone. Several national institutions have played an extraordinary role in creating a shared sense of citizenship.
All India Radio, Doordarshan, Indian cinema, the Railways, the postal system, telecommunications and the All India Services have connected people across linguistic, cultural and geographical boundaries.
The Indian Armed Forces remain perhaps the most powerful living example of national integration. Young men and women from every region, religion, language and community wear the same uniform and defend the same national flag.
When danger strikes at the border, no soldier asks the person standing beside him which language he speaks, which religion he follows or which state he comes from. Their shared commitment to the nation transcends every narrower identity.
That is the real strength of India. That is the nationalism we must preserve and strengthen.
Sardar Patel's Statue Is Not Enough; India Needs His Vision
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was born on October 31, 1875. His decisive role in integrating more than 562 princely states into the Indian Union after independence remains one of the most remarkable achievements in modern Indian history.
Since 2014, his birth anniversary has been observed as National Unity Day.
But erecting a gigantic statue in his honour does not automatically mean that we have embraced his ideals. A statue may become a tourist attraction; it cannot, by itself, create national unity.
That requires political determination, social justice, constitutional integrity and equal treatment of citizens.
We must honestly examine how seriously successive generations of political leadership have understood and carried forward the essence of Patel's contribution.
When electoral strategies revolve around the polarisation of voters on the basis of caste, religion, language, region and community, the national interest inevitably takes a back seat.
The purpose of democracy is not merely to capture political power. It is to protect the rights, freedoms and dignity of citizens.
Our leaders fold their hands at the doorsteps of ordinary citizens before elections. Once in office, however, they travel in convoys of dozens of vehicles, often forcing the very people they claim to serve off the roads. Is this public service? Is political power an instrument of sacrifice and responsibility, or has it become a permanent licence for privilege?
Citizens have every right to demand an account of every rupee spent from public funds on political officeholders and their entourages. They also have the right to ask how effectively every minute and every second of the supposedly invaluable time of their elected representatives is being used for public welfare.
The public must look beyond political rhetoric and examine the actual commitment of those entrusted with power. Do those occupying the highest offices truly uphold the ideals of sacrifice, service and responsibility that inspired India's freedom struggle?
It is the responsibility of citizens not to surrender their judgement to political personalities or narrow interests during elections, but to assess the conduct, character and public record of those seeking their mandate.
National Unity Must Become a Daily Practice, Not an Annual Ritual
National unity is not a subject to be confined to an annual pledge, an essay competition or a ceremonial speech on October 31. It is a daily test of our conduct, the impartiality of our laws, the vision of our education system and the moral character of our political leadership.
Before every decision, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Will this strengthen India or weaken it?
How long will we continue sowing the seeds of babool and expecting a harvest of mangoes?
Must India wait for another foreign invasion or an external threat to rediscover its unity every time?
A nation is not merely a piece of land or a geographical outline on a map. It is also the collective trust, dignity and mutual confidence of its people.
An undivided India cannot be built upon divided hearts. Until that trust remains intact, the dream of an Akhand Bharat will remain incomplete.
The real tribute to Sardar Patel will not be measured by the height of his statue, but by the depth of unity in the hearts of India's people.
By
Dr Rajaram Tripathi,
Agriculture and Rural Economy Expert | National Convenor, Akhil Bharatiya Kisan Mahasangh (AIFA)
