The editorial "Nationality debate in India: Modi's silence" (Mar. 28) has rightly voiced the concerns of millions of Indians and put forth plausible arguments over the issue of growing intolerance and the conspicuous silence of the prime minister. Patriotism is the first obligation of citizens and this can never be disputed or argued. However, what irks one is the government and the leaders of the party dictating the means and methods and especially the use of phrases, jargon or words to demonstrate or express patriotism. If I can draw an analogy or parallel, it is like expressing our love for our mother or father. One could use any means or words or phrases to express love for one's parents and need not take tuition classes or lessons for this purpose. More often than not, there is absolutely no need for a person to keep expressing love for his motherland. Would we require citizens to display the flag of the country on their cars or houses all the time? Love in subtlety has its own value. What is important is the character of the citizen that should reflect the greatness of the country. The beauty of Indian polity lies in the country not only being truly democratic but also being totally secular. Yes, the constitution can be amended by the will of the people. However, the architects of the constitution of India kept in mind the whimsical nature of leaders and provided for several restrictions and procedures to amend the constitution. The Indian constitution can neither be termed as rigidly fixed nor fully flexible. It not only requires a majority vote of the members of both houses of Parliament, but it is also necessary to have the votes of two thirds of the members present and voting. More importantly, for certain provisions, the amendments will also require ratification by the Legislative Assembly of at least half of the States of India. Such restrictions or requirements to amend the Constitution notwithstanding, the party or the leaders proposing any amendment to the constitution must bear in mind the innate spirit of the Constitution which is fully reflected in its Preamble that also grants liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. There can never be any compromise on these liberties and freedoms regardless of the majority. One wonders why the issue of nationalism or patriotism started being raked up after the BJP came into power. Such issues neither existed earlier nor were relevant at any time as no one ever questioned the patriotism of Indians at large. The attempts to banish secularism which is the fundamental principle or rather the pivot on which the country revolves will be futile since the secular nature of the people of India will not allow that to take root. The two unfortunate incidents referred to in the editorial and which resulted in the death of two persons over a beef row were indeed very sad and shameful. It was appalling to see that in one case the meat was sent for forensic testing as if the killing of the innocent person would be justified if the meat was proven to be that of a cow. To which age are they trying to push back India to? It is not that the leaders of the party are demarcating lines between religions and sects; they are also engaged in silencing the voice of liberals and other parties. The arrests of the students leaders of JNU and suppressing the voice of the students at Hyderabad Central University point to that devilish design being harbored on the back of power. India is known for democracy and democratic institutions around the world and let the leaders not tarnish that image for petty politics. Of course, the silence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on these issues is indeed a matter of grave concern. The nation and the minorities need reassurance from him in most categorical and vociferous terms that the fabric of secularism will remain unstained and untarnished. After partition, like other communities, Muslims have lived in India as patriots and never attempted secession or waged war in any manner against the State or the nation. It is an established fact that communal strife and riots were the handiwork of political parties for their own ulterior motives. What is bothersome also is the attempt by certain sections of the Muslim community to counter obstinacy and unwarranted insistence. In that they falter more and expose themselves to willful tirades and counterarguments. What point does it serve to shower plaudits on so-called Muslim dynasties and narrate their contributions to India? When the British left India and after the sad and unwarranted partition, the country became a true mosaic of colors with diverse communities and cultures. The strength of India lies in diversity and the focus should be on maintaining this diversity to strengthen unity. What the whole country needs and that includes Muslims and the minorities is progress and prosperity. I wish that Muslim leaders would stop engaging in loose talks and focus their attention on opening avenues for the education of the masses. Let none wear the mantle of savior of Muslims as none at the present time deserves that hat. Safi H. Jannaty,
