There has been undoubtedly a multitude of achievements in the past few decades in the fields of space exploration, technology, defense, medicine, poverty eradication, education, sports, etc. that should fill every Indian with pride and glory when India showed to the world the glimpses of its rising prowess. But there are only a few critical events in the history of a nation, that builds its consciousness, for instance, Total Revolution, Anti Corruption Movement, Nirbhaya Protests, etc. The recent amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 (or the CAA) and the subsequent awakening throughout the country which consolidated its 'citizens' for a national cause is one such event. And at this inflection point, it is not only our right to express our opinion on the current situation in the country but more importantly, it is a constitutional duty to do so rationally.

History repeats itself first as a tragedy and second as a farce. 

The majority of Indians today have a vague understanding of the history and the idea of India, thanks to the market-oriented education system of our country besides unauthentic facts and uncertified information over social media. A modicum of population, who has some understanding of the history, today comprises either the history enthusiasts or those who have history as a subject of specialization. In such a background, it is easier to redefine nationalism which is quite different from what our forefathers fought for, against a corrupt imperial establishment. That nationalism was in stark contrast with those of western forms, based on languages (European nation-states), race (Nazi Germany), and religion (viz. Israel), etc.

The subcontinent had been a melting pot of civilizations since Harappan and post-Vedic times. Such was the secular outlook of the inhabitants of this land that it became the birthplace of multiple major religions viz. Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism in predominantly Hindu society. Even the Sufi sect of Islam was indigenously Hindustani. All of these can be attributed to the affinity for reasoning and rational questioning of the rulers of those eras. Upanishadic verse sarva dharma sambhava is a testimony to this worldview. This formed the basis for an inclusive society.

Although the word 'Secular' was inserted in Preamble to the Constitution much later, the structure of the Indian state conceived by our nationalist leaders was inherently secular, reflected in various Constitution articles viz. 14. 15, 25, etc. Religion was never the determinant of our nation during the freedom struggle. In fact, when religion was bombarded with the polity during pre-independence, it led to the splitting of the nationalist movement, and ultimately the partition of the subcontinent. It was the desire of a leader to have a separate land for a particular religion, that created a neighbor, a nation whose idea we don't admire to this day. 

The character of society is shaped by political circumstances and vice-versa. 

The political uncertainty and the leadership void created at the beginning of the previous decade gave space to a right-wing political party that eventually swept into power in two successive national elections besides those in the states. The glaring fact that a right-wing political coalition secured around 60% of parliamentary seats in the last election was a faint indicator that the secular outlook of people of the country was gradually being transformed into a conservative one assisted by the receding political space for any opposition at the national level. Tags like Anti-Nationals, Urban Naxals, Tukde-Tukde, etc. became a way of restraining the Freedom of speech and expression. Terminologies such as Mob Lynching, Cow Vigilantism, Beef Ban, etc. began surfacing increasingly into the socio-politics. These events eventually became a new normal with the political support that these got. Silence is also a form of support. Period! Subsequent erosion of the inclusivist-cum-tolerant outlook was taken for granted by the society due to constant reassurance from the country's top leadership that small hiccups do arise when the country is on a fast-paced development trajectory and hence need not be paid heed to. Society kept its calm as if these events were meant to serve as an oblation for the grand process of making a "New India". Social and news media, which were meant to be agents of change became agents of damaging secularism.

Religion is a very sensitive element that is often used in a diverse society as a means to segregate the population for intended purposes. It is a personal matter of every individual and therefore combining it with patriotism is both corruption and a hijack of nationalism as a monopoly of one particular religion. Dictatorial establishments around the world have set a template, in the past, of this kind of nationalism through its association with religion or race. It involves a complex and dangerous blend of fear, jingoism, propaganda, hate speeches, curtailing of freedoms and rights of some sections of the population, hollowing of institutions, etc. which is ultimately aimed at the creation of the 'other'. It leads to a virtual distinction between 'us' and 'them'. When this division becomes an invisible reality, it becomes easy for the establishment to inflict horror upon the targeted population, through legal means. This is, as Ambedkar warned, the fear of tyranny of the majority associated with democracy. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 is one such attempt to create that artificial distinction. Enlisting religion as a criterion to pass the citizenship test is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, which will subsequently be scrutinized by the judiciary. The selection of only three particular countries in the legislation, for providing citizenship to their persecuted minorities, is an attempt to re-emphasize the same pretext which was given for the partition that the religious minorities cannot live peacefully with a majority. This may disturb the harmony in the country and exacerbate the already weakening secular fabric of the country.

Other prominent fear associated with this Act is its coupling with the National Register of Citizens. This is a likely exercise, considering the ruling party's record of fulfilling its manifesto's promises in the past several months. Flawless NRC is nearly impossible in a country like ours, as is already seen in Assam, but the mere concept is enough to reap long term electoral gains. More than the communal tensions, the faulty implementation of such a humungous task throughout the country will have more devastating impacts, like that of demonetisation. The association of CAA-NRC is bound to give a definite blow to secularism. It is this fear that ignited sparks of resistance, against the legislation, among university students. The sorry state of the economy, farm distress and ever high unemployment rates assisted the breakdown of numbness and fears of expressing the opinions among the larger population. These factors along with the continuous silencing of the act of questioning governmental policies simmered anger which gradually took the shape of nationwide protests. The government's attempts at allaying these fears by suppressing the resistance have ironically produced the biggest awakening of the Constitution and a significant proportion of the population has come together for the protection of values of pluralism, secularism, fraternity, that the nation has seen in the recent history. These mass movements draw inspirations from the non-violent satyagrahas of the past and are satisfying depictions of the legacy of the Father of Nation. We the people of India, are the ultimate authority of this nation and the Constitution reflects their wishes, indeed they must come forward to protect it.

The state exists to serve the interests of society as a whole. These interests are secured through fundamental rights in a democratic state with tenets like equality and liberty. Institutions serve as pillars of democracy while they also ensure checks and balances so as to prevent the abuse of power. Reasoning brings out the shortcomings in the policies making them more effective. Destroying the space for questioning and dissent destroys the basis of growth- social, cultural, political, economic, in a democracy. It is difficult to bring about constructive change without balancing the interests of the state and society. The weakening of institutions, the centralisation of power and the gap between the policy promises and its actual delivery accentuate the tensions between society and the state. Today the nation is witnessing the public manifestations of these tensions in the form of anti-CAA protests with a wider inherent message that society will not allow the state to rewrite the social contract to realise its narrow and partisan predilections.