India has never been a quiet democracy. Its freedom movement was built through argument, public meetings, newspapers, pamphlets, marches, civil disobedience and imprisonment. Independent India inherited that argumentative political culture together with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity, security of the state, public order, decency, defamation and other specified grounds. The central democratic argument therefore has never been whether speech can be restricted. It has been over when restriction is justified, how narrowly it is applied, and whether the state uses the same standard against supporters and opponents alike.

That distinction matters because the vocabulary of nationalism has become increasingly political. India is larger than any government, party or leader. Governments seek mandates and exercise authority for a period. The Republic continues beyond them. Criticising a prime minister, chief minister, military procurement decision, election authority, police action or law does not by itself amount to hostility towards India. At the same time, a democratic commitment to free expression does not oblige the state to ignore direct incitement to violence, terrorist propaganda, organised threats or deliberate communal provocation. A serious democratic system has to distinguish between these categories rather than collapsing them into slogans.

The legal terrain has changed significantly in recent years. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the colonial-era sedition provision, was effectively placed in abeyance by the Supreme Court in 2022 while the Union government reconsidered the law. When the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC, sedition disappeared by name, but Section 152 created an offence covering acts that excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activity, separatist activity or endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The provision also protects lawful criticism of government measures, but civil-liberties lawyers and free-speech advocates have argued that phrases such as “subversive activities” are capable of broad interpretation. The issue is not merely the wording of the statute. The deeper question is how police, prosecutors and courts apply it in real cases.

Recent cases show why the distinction is important. In 2025, Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore was booked under Section 152 over social-media posts made after the Pahalgam attack. Journalist Siddharth Varadarajan also faced proceedings under the provision over reporting connected to Operation Sindoor, and the Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest while legal challenges continued. Whatever one’s view of the speech involved, such cases demonstrate the practical reach of criminal law into political and journalistic expression. An acquittal years later does not erase the cost of an FIR, interrogation, travel, legal fees and uncertainty. This is why courts have repeatedly warned that the process itself cannot become a substitute for punishment.

University campuses have provided another recurring battleground. Jawaharlal Nehru University became the centre of a national controversy in 2016 when slogans, arrests and allegations of anti-national activity turned student politics into a wider argument about patriotism and dissent. The anti-CAA movement later produced large demonstrations across the country, including the prolonged Shaheen Bagh sit-in. Farmers protesting the three agricultural laws occupied the borders of Delhi for months before Parliament repealed the legislation in 2021. These movements were politically different from one another, but each exposed the same constitutional pressure point: how far citizens may confront the state, and how the state responds when protest becomes inconvenient, disruptive or nationally visible.

Digital restrictions have added another dimension. Access Now recorded 116 internet shutdowns in India in 2023, 84 in 2024 and 65 in 2025 across 12 states and union territories. The decline is significant, yet the continuing scale remains striking for a large constitutional democracy that is also one of the world’s most important digital economies. Governments have defended shutdowns as temporary measures to control riots, rumours, examinations, communal tension and security threats. Those concerns are not imaginary. False information has contributed to panic and violence in India. But shutdowns also affect students, hospitals, journalists, traders, payments, families and emergency communication. The democratic question is therefore one of proportionality: whether restrictions are narrowly targeted, time-bound, reviewable and used only when less intrusive measures are inadequate.

The press is part of the same debate. Reporters Without Borders placed India 157th out of 180 countries in its 2026 World Press Freedom Index, down from 151st in 2025, citing concerns that include violence against journalists, media ownership concentration and political pressure. International rankings are not infallible, and governments are entitled to challenge methodology, weighting and interpretation. Yet dismissing every external measure because it is uncomfortable would be equally weak. A confident democracy should examine criticism, separate good evidence from bad methodology and respond with facts. The strongest answer to an adverse ranking is a stronger record.

Free-speech advocates also have responsibilities. The digital public sphere is not a clean marketplace of ideas. Fabricated videos, communal rumours, targeted abuse, manipulated clips and organised harassment circulate quickly. Women journalists, political workers and activists are routinely subjected to sexualised threats and coordinated intimidation. Political misinformation is not the monopoly of one party or ideology. A credible defence of free speech therefore cannot consist of defending only the speech of one’s own side. It must also defend the right of opponents to speak, while supporting proportionate legal action against genuine threats, incitement and criminal intimidation.

Nationalism itself is not a single political doctrine. For some citizens it is expressed through military service and territorial security. For others it lies in defending constitutional institutions, reducing poverty, protecting civil liberties, strengthening public education or fighting corruption. These ideas can conflict, but they all claim a relationship with the nation. No party can permanently monopolise that relationship. The soldier at the border, the election official protecting a ballot, the judge enforcing due process, the journalist exposing corruption, the scientist serving a public institution and the citizen peacefully challenging an official decision may all understand patriotism differently while still acting within the same constitutional Republic.

India’s political class would gain from treating dissent with more confidence and less panic. Opposition parties should resist the temptation to defend free speech only when their supporters are targeted. Governments should remember that criminal law is an instrument of state power, not a method of winning an argument. Police should be judged by whether they distinguish between unpopular opinion and unlawful conduct. Universities should protect debate without allowing intimidation. News organisations should defend editorial independence while correcting misinformation quickly and visibly. Citizens should learn to ask for evidence before forwarding outrage. None of these responsibilities belongs exclusively to one ideological camp.

The larger issue is not whether India has enough nationalism. It is whether Indian nationalism can remain compatible with constitutional citizenship. A country of more than 1.4 billion people will contain intense disagreement about religion, history, language, caste, borders, war, welfare, leaders and the meaning of the Republic itself. That disagreement is not a defect to be eliminated. It is a permanent condition of Indian democracy. The task is to prevent disagreement from turning into violence while preventing the fear of disorder from becoming a licence to suppress legitimate criticism.

India’s constitutional system has enough room for patriotism, dissent and free speech to coexist, but coexistence requires discipline from the state and from citizens. National security must be protected with evidence and law. Political criticism must be answered politically whenever possible. Speech that crosses into direct criminal conduct can be prosecuted through clear, narrowly applied statutes. Everything else should be argued in public. That is how a large and often angry democracy remains democratic: not by demanding quiet, but by insisting that power, protest and speech all remain subject to the same constitutional rules.

← RETURN TO TODAY'S EDITION