India’s transition from a feudal and hierarchical social order to a society aspiring for democratic values began during the colonial period. The emergence of modern industries created a new working class, and the introduction of modern education, especially through policies shaped by Thomas Macaulay, laid the groundwork for a more liberal and rights-based public sphere. Pre-modern social structures—feudal and semi-feudal—were rooted in divine authority and caste-based hierarchies, leaving little space for the notion of equal rights. It was within the colonial context that new social forces emerged and articulated demands for rights.
The national movement was led by figures who had imbibed democratic ideas and modern political thought. Leaders such as Sardar Patel, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad and Subhash Chandra Bose articulated a vision of the nation built on equality and freedom. Reformers also drew inspiration from global texts: for instance, Jyotirao Phule was influenced by Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, while B.R. Ambedkar was deeply shaped by his engagement with John Dewey’s democratic philosophy.
Against this historical backdrop, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent criticism of Macaulay as the architect of India’s “rights-oriented” education system and his emphasis on traditional knowledge must be understood as part of a broader shift. These statements align with a long-standing ideological effort to foreground duty over rights.
Both Modi’s Hindutva framework and the early Muslim League, despite representing different religious identities, were rooted in the values of declining feudal elites—landlords, nawabs and kings. The Hindutva imagination invokes an ancient past centred on dharma, understood as religiously sanctioned duties. This worldview assigns duties hierarchically—shudra dharma, stree dharma, kshatriya dharma, and so on—leaving little conceptual space for equal rights. The Muslim League, emerging largely from feudal elites, nostalgically celebrated the era of Muslim kings and upheld social hierarchies legitimised by divine sanction. Pakistan’s formal adoption of secular principles under Jinnah was soon overshadowed by feudal dominance after his death.
As Hindu nationalism gains ground in India, the rights-based vision embedded in the national movement and the Constitution increasingly faces ideological resistance. Modi’s call to discard the “Macaulay education system” was an early signal. The message became explicit on Constitution Day (26 November 2025), when he emphasised the primacy of Fundamental Duties, describing them as the foundation of democracy and central to his “Viksit Bharat 2047” vision. He argued that “real rights are a result of the performance of duty” and that duties must come “foremost in our minds.”
This framing, however, sits uneasily with constitutional principles. As journalist Shravasti Dasgupta notes, constitutional scholars argue that linking rights to prior fulfilment of duties is incorrect. The Constitution lists duties, but they are not a precondition for Fundamental Rights. Critics view an emphasis on duties, especially when placed above rights, as a subtle attempt to recast the constitutional order in a more authoritarian mould, demanding compliance rather than empowering citizens.
Modi invoked Mahatma Gandhi to support his argument, claiming Gandhi saw rights as arising from duties. But as Prof. Zoya Hasan points out, Gandhi distinguished between personal moral duties and the political imperative of safeguarding rights. For him, duties were a path for individual ethical conduct, not a substitute for state-guaranteed rights. Gandhi never suggested that duties supersede rights.
The contrast with the UPA era (2004–2014) is notable, as that period saw the institutionalisation of several rights-based laws: the Right to Information, Right to Education, Right to Food and steps toward a right to health. These policies deepened democratic participation and accountability. After 2014, however, the rights-based approach has been largely abandoned, with the political discourse shifting toward duties.
The Constitution itself places rights at the centre of citizenship. Article 21—the Right to Life—flows into the rights to health, education and livelihood. Fundamental Rights are non-negotiable guarantees, not rewards for good behaviour. Yet the political climate under Hindu nationalism has increasingly constrained rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and minority protections—rights that are also foundational to international human rights norms.
Modi’s recent letter underscores a broader ideological project that sidelines rights while elevating duties. This aligns with policies that marginalise minorities, target intellectuals under labels such as “Urban Naxals,” and encourage a culture of conformity. Comparatively, many authoritarian regimes also emphasise duties over rights in their constitutions, using the language of national responsibility to limit dissent.
The debate is not merely semantic. India’s democratic future depends on whether constitutional rights remain central to citizenship or become conditional upon state-defined duties. The choice between these two visions will shape the character of the republic in the years ahead.
---
Comments