Beyond the Religion Code : Tribal Traditions in the Civilizational Consciousness of Bharat

In recent years, the demand for a separate religion code for Bharatiya tribal communities has re-emerged in public discourse, particularly in the context of the national census. Its proponents argue that such a classification is necessary to preserve tribal identity and protect their belief systems. The arguments in favour of this demand, as they propose is that tribal communities deserve recognition, dignity, and the freedom to preserve their cultural heritage. However, the larger question is whether a separate religion code truly safeguards tribal traditions that are varied?  

The debate, therefore, extends far beyond a census column. It concerns the very manner in which Bharatiya experience understands religion, identity, and civilization. Unlike the Abrahamic traditions, the Bharatiya conception of dharma has never been confined to the authority of a single prophet, a single revealed scripture, or a centralized ecclesiastical institution. Bharatiya civilization evolved through countless streams of spiritual experience, local customs, sacred geographies, philosophical schools, and community traditions. Diversity was not merely tolerated; it was internalized as an intrinsic characteristic of Bharatiya civilizational life.

This distinctive civilizational framework explains why Bharat’s tribal traditions have never existed as isolated religious islands. Their worship of sacred groves, mountains, rivers, ancestral spirits, village deities, forests, and Mother Earth represents some of the oldest surviving expressions of the Bharatiya worldview. Nature reverence, ancestor worship, sacred landscapes, and community rituals are not alien to Bharatiya civilization. They constitute many of its earliest foundations. The attempt to construct an impermeable boundary between "tribal religion" and the broader Bhartiya civilizational tradition, therefore, deserves careful scrutiny.

A Civilizational, Rather Than a Colonial Lens

Much of the contemporary discourse on tribal identity continues to be influenced by colonial anthropology. Nineteenth-century European scholars attempted to classify societies into rigid evolutionary stages ranging from "primitive" to "civilized." Tribal communities across Asia, Africa, Australia, and Latin America were often viewed as relics of an earlier stage of human development, fundamentally separate from the so-called mainstream. These categories were subsequently applied to Bharat with little appreciation of its unique historical experience. The Bharatiya case, however, does not fit this colonial template.

In the case of North America, South America, or Australia, the indigenous peoples were physically segregated. They were forcefully pushed into separate reserved spaces and systematically excluded from the dominant social order. On the other hand, Bharat’s tribal communities have remained participants in an evolving civilizational ecosystem for millennia. They interacted continuously with neighbouring communities through trade, agriculture, pilgrimage, festivals, kinship networks, and cultural exchanges. While maintaining distinctive identities, they also contributed to a shared civilizational ethos.

It is precisely this historical experience that led eminent Bharatiya sociologists and anthropologists such as G. S. Ghurye, Nirmal Kumar Bose, S. C. Dube, and Surajit Sinha to challenge simplistic colonial binaries. Their scholarship demonstrated that the relationship between tribal and non-tribal communities in Bharat was shaped not merely by coexistence but by sustained cultural interaction, mutual accommodation, and gradual integration. Their work reminds us that Bharatiya anthropology cannot simply borrow categories developed elsewhere without considering Bharat’s own historical and cultural realities.

Diversity without Separation

One of the greatest strengths of Bharatiya civilization has been its remarkable ability to accommodate diversity without insisting upon uniformity. Across the country, tribal traditions illustrate this phenomenon. The Sarna traditions of Jharkhand, centred on the sacred sal grove, reflect an ancient reverence for nature that resonates with broader Bharatiya traditions of tree worship. The Donyi-Polo faith of Arunachal Pradesh venerates the Sun and the Moon, symbols that occupy an equally significant place in Vedic literature. Among the Bhils of western Bharat, forms of Shiva worship coexist naturally with local deities. Gond religious traditions seamlessly combine clan rituals, ancestor reverence, village deities, and wider Hindu practices.

These examples do not suggest homogeneity. Rather, they reveal a civilizational pattern where local traditions retain their uniqueness while participating in a larger cultural universe. Bharatiya civilization has never demanded theological uniformity as a condition for belonging.

Shared Sacred Geography

The cultural relationship between tribal and non-tribal communities is also reflected in Bharat’s shared sacred geography. Village deities, local guardian spirits, sacred forests, rivers, mountains, and seasonal festivals often transcend rigid social boundaries. Across central, eastern, and northeastern Bharat, numerous local shrines continue to be revered jointly by tribal and non-tribal communities.

Many tribal festivals are celebrated with neighboring rural communities, while several Hindu pilgrimage traditions preserve memories of tribal participation and guardianship. The Jagannath tradition of Odisha, for instance, remains one of the most visible illustrations of the historical interaction between tribal traditions and mainstream temple worship. Such examples remind us that Bharatiya civilization has grown not by replacing local cultures but by accepting and honouring them. This process of cultural synthesis has been among Bharat’s greatest civilizational strengths.

The Freedom Struggles of Tribal India

History further demonstrates that tribal communities were never detached from Bharat’s broader national consciousness. The Santhal Hul of 1855, the Kol uprising, the Bhil movements, and Bhagwan Birsa Munda's Ulgulan and many freedom movements against the British colonial rule were undoubtedly struggles against oppression, economic exploitation, and cultural humiliation.

At the same time, it’s equally important to remember that the tribal movements against colonial rule represented the broader resolve of the Bharatiya people to preserve their civilizational fabric. Their fights against the British Raj cannot merely be confined to defending their jal, jangal, and zameen. Instead, they desired their traditions and their dignity within the larger civilizational landscape of Bharat. These movements cannot be reduced to isolated ethnic revolts.

Does a Separate Religion Code Solve Real Problems?

Supporters of a separate religion code often present it as an instrument of cultural preservation. However, the practical and conceptual questions suggest otherwise. Can hundreds of distinct tribal traditions, each with its own rituals, deities, cosmologies, and social institutions, realistically be grouped under a single administrative category called "tribal religion"? Would such a classification preserve diversity, or inadvertently lead towards homogeneity? The irony is difficult to ignore. A proposal advanced in the name of protecting diversity may end up replacing numerous living traditions with a single bureaucratic label.

The demand also diverts attention from challenges that continue to affect tribal communities far more directly. The issues related to educational opportunities, healthcare, and livelihood security.  Equally important are the issues of preservation of indigenous languages. The documentation of oral traditions and the protection of sacred landscapes. The implementation of constitutional safeguards and meaningful participation in development. All these aspects, in fact, are the core in relation to protecting tribal identity, existence, and development.

Administrative categorisation alone cannot address these concerns. The demand for a separate religion code, at most, is a negotiating tool for power brokers rather than addressing the real issues concerning tribal communities of Bharat.

Constitutional and Judicial Perspectives

Bharat’s constitutional framework has consistently recognised the pluralistic character of its religious traditions. The framers of the Constitution understood that the term "Hindu" often carried a broader civilizational meaning extending beyond narrow theological definitions. During debates surrounding Hindu law reforms, numerous traditions and communities were accommodated within a broad legal framework while retaining their distinct customs.

Judicial pronouncements have similarly acknowledged the exceptional diversity of the Hindu tradition. In Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966), the Supreme Court famously observed that Hinduism does not rest upon a single founder, a single dogma, or a single religious text. Subsequent judgments reiterated its pluralistic and inclusive character.

These observations do not erase tribal distinctiveness. Rather, they underline the unique capacity of Bharatiya civilization to embrace diversity without demanding uniformity.

Beyond Colonial Categories

The etymology of terms like "animism" and "tribal religion" traces their origin to the colonial rule in Bharat. They were deliberately developed to create differences among Bharatiya communities living in hills, forests, villages, and towns. They are absolutely insufficient to understand Bharat’s civilizational complexity.

Today’s Bharat must be cautious about reproducing inherited colonial categories without critically examining their underlying politics. A decolonised understanding of tribal communities requires acknowledging their civilizational connectedness with the neighboring communities living in villages and towns.

The Way Forward

The preservation of tribal heritage is unquestionably a national responsibility. But preservation should not be confused with separation. The real priorities lie elsewhere: strengthening indigenous languages, documenting oral traditions, protecting sacred ecological landscapes, supporting tribal educational institutions, promoting traditional knowledge systems, safeguarding customary practices, ensuring effective implementation of constitutional protections, and enabling tribal communities to shape their own developmental future.

Civilizational unity has never required cultural uniformity.  Genius lies precisely in its ability to allow multiple identities to flourish within a shared civilizational framework. The tribal communities of Bharat are not peripheral to this civilization; they are among its oldest custodians. Their traditions are not "other religions" in any civilizational sense. They are living expressions of an ancient worldview that has shaped Bharat’s cultural imagination for thousands of years.

The debate on a separate religion code should therefore move beyond administrative classifications and political symbolism. It should instead encourage a deeper reflection on Bharat’s civilizational character, a civilization that has historically united diverse communities not through exclusion or homogenisation, but through cultural dialogue, mutual respect, and spiritual plurality. In preserving tribal traditions, Bharat must ensure that it does not unintentionally weaken the very civilizational unity that has enabled those traditions to survive across the centuries.

Jagannath Rath Yatra: A Living Testament to Bharat’s Tribal-Civilizational Heritage

 

Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri and elsewhere in Bharat and other parts of the world is one of the most magnificent religious festivals of Hindus. Millions of devotees participate in this festival across the world. As a result, the world's attention naturally turns to it. Yet beyond the grandeur of the towering chariots, the chants of devotees, and the spiritual fervour lies a profound civilizational message. This aspect is something that deserves recognition. The Jagannath tradition reminds us that Bharat’s tribal communities have never stood outside the broader Hindu civilizational framework. Moreover, they have been among its indispensable custodians.

In other parts of the world, indigenous and settler populations evolved in opposition to one another. Bharat’s historical experience, however, has largely been one of interaction, coexistence, and cultural exchange. Communities inhabiting forests, villages, and towns continuously borrowed from one another's beliefs, rituals, and ways of life. This exchange created a shared civilizational ethos while retaining their distinctive identities. The Jagannath tradition stands as one of the finest living examples of this historical process.

The origins of Bhagwan Jagannath are intimately connected with the Shabara tribal tradition. According to the Skanda Purana, the Daitapati community of the Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir traces its lineage to the legendary Shabara king Vishvavasu. He was the devoted worshipper of Bhagwan Nilamadhava. This association is not merely symbolic. It continues to shape the ritual life of the Mandir even today. The role of the Daitapatis becomes especially significant during the annual Rath Yatra. They occupy a significant importance in the sacred rituals surrounding it.

The Daitapati community performs some of the temple's most sacred responsibilities, from the Snana Purnima ceremonies to the Anasara period. Snana Purnima marks the ceremonial purification of the deities, Bhagwan Jagannath, Balabhadra, and Subhadra, with 108 pots of sacred well water. This ritual initiates the 15-day seclusion (Anasara) where the gods symbolically rest before embarking on their famous chariot. The Daitapatis ceremonially bathes the deities, cares for them during Anasara, carries them onto the chariots, accompanies them throughout the procession, and oversees several important rituals associated with the festival.

At yet another important ritual called Navakalevara, loosely translated as "New Body", is held approximately every twelve to nineteen years. The Daitapati community plays an important role in this ritual. In this, the wooden idols of Bhagwan Jagannath, Balabhadra, Subhadra, and Sudarshana are replaced. It symbolises death and rebirth, and the cyclical nature of life. The Daitapatis exclusively lead the search for the sacred neem trees, supervise the carving of the new idols, perform the sacred transfer of the divine essence, and ceremonially inter the old images. This ritual highlights the enduring role of the Shabara tribal tradition in the Jagannath cult.

Many features of the Jagannath tradition also reflect practices long associated with tribal communities. The wooden images of Bhagwan Jagannath, Balabhadra, Subhadra, and Sudarshana. Their distinctive pillar-like forms. The periodic renewal of the deities through Navakalevara. The intimate familial relationship maintained between the Daitapatis and the deities. All these practices resonate with ritual traditions found among several tribal communities of eastern and central Bharat. These are not signs of separation but of centuries of shared cultural evolution.

This understanding is supported by several distinguished Bharatiya sociologists and anthropologists. Scholars such as G. S. Ghurye, N. K. Bose, Surajit Sinha, S. C. Dube, L. P. Vidyarthi, and K. S. Singh demonstrated that the relationship between tribal and non-tribal communities in Bharat has historically been characterised by interaction rather than rigid isolation. Their studies show that tribal societies were active participants in the making of Bharatiya civilization. They immensely contributed to its religious traditions, regional cultures, and social institutions while simultaneously adapting ideas from neighbouring communities.

This historical experience also distinguishes Bharat from the colonial histories of North and South America or Australia. Indigenous peoples on these continents were often displaced, segregated, or marginalised by settler societies. In Bharat, despite undeniable social and economic inequalities in different regions and periods, tribal communities continued to remain integral to the country's religious and cultural life. The Jagannath tradition itself illustrates this enduring continuity.

The gravest disruption came during British colonial rule. British Raj exploited tribal communities through the means of forest legislation, revenue settlements, and administrative interventions. These policies fundamentally altered the relationship between tribal communities and their forests, land, and customary institutions. The resulting alienation of jal, jangal, and zameen fuelled many tribal uprisings across the subcontinent. Independent Bharat consciously chose a different path. The Constitution recognised the distinct identity and rights of Scheduled Tribes from the very beginning. Later legislations such as the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and the Forest Rights Act, 2006, further strengthened constitutional safeguards and community rights.

The Jagannath Rath Yatra therefore offers a timely reminder that Bharat’s unity has never depended upon uniformity. It has been built upon dialogue, mutual respect, and the continuous enrichment of one tradition by another. The participation of the Daitapati community is not a ceremonial relic preserved for historical curiosity. It is a living affirmation that tribal communities have been co-creators and custodians of Bharat’s civilizational heritage.

As the chariots of Bhagwan Jagannath roll through the streets of Puri and in other parts of Bharat, they carry not only the Lord of the Universe but also a timeless message. Bharat’s civilization has flourished because its forests, villages, and towns have never been isolated worlds. They have journeyed together, enriching one another across centuries. In celebrating Bhagwan Jagannath, Bharat also celebrates the enduring contribution of its tribal communities to the making of its shared civilizational identity.

India Is Biding Its Time: Strategic Patience in a Changing World Order

 

"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle." — Sun Tzu

Every major international crisis involving India today is accompanied by a familiar question: Why is India not playing the role of a global mediator? Whether during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Israel-Hamas war, or the recent Iran-Israel-United States confrontation, commentators have repeatedly argued that a country aspiring to become a leading global power should exercise greater diplomatic influence in shaping outcomes.

Such criticism, however, rests upon an assumption that every rising power must immediately seek visibility in every international crisis. History suggests otherwise. Rising powers often choose strategic patience over strategic activism. Their primary objective is not to dominate every diplomatic conversation. It's about strengthening their own national foundations before assuming wider global responsibilities. It is in this broader historical context that India's foreign policy deserves to be understood.

India's cautious diplomacy should not automatically be interpreted as indecision or lack of ambition. Rather, it may represent a conscious long-term strategy. It is aimed at preparing India for a world whose centre of gravity is gradually shifting from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific.

A Changing International Order

International politics rarely remains static. Since the end of the Second World War, global leadership has largely remained concentrated in the United States and Western Europe. The Bretton Woods institutions, NATO, the United Nations Security Council, and the liberal international economic order reflected this distribution of power. Today, however, that order is undergoing gradual transformation.

Scholars such as Kishore Mahbubani argue that the twenty-first century marks the "Asian Century," characterised by the economic resurgence of Asian civilizations. Parag Khanna similarly speaks of the emergence of a multipolar world in which Asia becomes the principal engine of global growth. While such projections remain contested and the transition is neither linear nor guaranteed, there is broad agreement among many analysts that Asia's economic and strategic importance has increased substantially over the past three decades.

India itself has become one of the fastest-growing major economies. It has emerged as a leading digital economy, a significant defence market, a trusted pharmaceutical supplier, and a major space power. It is increasingly becoming an important participant in global supply chains. Simultaneously, institutions such as the Quad, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the G20, and the Indo-Pacific strategic architecture reflect an evolving international landscape in which power is becoming more diffuse. In such circumstances, India's greatest strategic advantage may lie not in rushing to lead every crisis but in steadily strengthening its own capabilities.

The Cost of Strategic Overreach

The experiences of several Western powers over the past three decades illustrate the enormous costs associated with sustained military interventions. The interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria were undertaken with different objectives and under different legal and political circumstances. Supporters argued that these interventions addressed terrorism, weapons proliferation, or humanitarian crises. Critics, however, contend that many of these operations produced prolonged instability, weakened state institutions, displaced millions of civilians, and generated unintended geopolitical consequences for US-Europe and the world.

The military interventions by the United States and several European powers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria contributed significantly to the refugee crisis that followed. In response, many European countries admitted large numbers of displaced people on humanitarian grounds. While many refugees integrated peacefully, the integration process has also posed serious challenges. In some cases, radicalisation, cultural incompatibility, and identity politics have fuelled concerns over law and order, national security, and social cohesion in countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and several Scandinavian nations. These developments are likely to have lasting economic, political, and demographic implications for Europe.

It's pertinent to note that these developments do not imply the West's decline. The United States continues to possess unmatched military capabilities, technological leadership, financial influence, and an extensive alliance network. Yet they do suggest that even the most powerful states must carefully balance global commitments with domestic resilience.

China's Long Preparation

Perhaps no country illustrates the value of strategic patience more effectively than China. Following the death of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping fundamentally reoriented Chinese strategy. His famous dictum, often paraphrased as "hide your strength and bide your time," did not advocate passivity. Instead, it emphasised concentrating national energies on economic modernisation while avoiding unnecessary geopolitical confrontation or making noise in every international situation.

China invested massively in manufacturing, infrastructure, education, ports, technology, and export competitiveness. Market-oriented reforms were introduced without abandoning its communist policies politically. Hundreds of millions were lifted out of poverty. Within four decades, China transformed itself into the world's second-largest economy and one of the principal centres of global manufacturing. Only after achieving substantial economic strength did China begin asserting itself more visibly through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, expanded naval capabilities, technological competition, and greater diplomatic activism.

Whether one agrees with China's contemporary policies or not, its developmental trajectory demonstrates that sustained national capacity often precedes geopolitical influence.

India's Distinct Path

India's journey is necessarily different. Unlike China, India is a vibrant constitutional democracy with a plural social structure, federal governance, independent institutions, and an open political system. Its developmental choices must therefore reconcile economic growth with democratic accountability.

India's foreign policy since independence has consistently emphasised strategic autonomy. Earlier expressed through non-alignment, this philosophy has gradually evolved into what many scholars describe as multi-alignment. India today maintains close strategic partnerships simultaneously with the United States, Russia, France, Japan, Israel, the Gulf countries, ASEAN, and Africa. Such diplomatic flexibility allows India to maximise opportunities without becoming overly dependent upon any single power bloc.

Far from indicating indecisiveness, this reflects sophisticated balancing behaviour suited to an increasingly multipolar world. India purchases defence equipment from multiple sources, participates in the Quad while remaining active in BRICS, strengthens relations with Israel while maintaining engagement with the Arab world, and continues longstanding defence cooperation with Russia while expanding strategic convergence with Western democracies. This balancing act requires restraint, credibility, and consistency.

Preparing for Leadership Through National Strength

India's current priorities appear increasingly centred upon strengthening the foundations of national power. Economic growth remains essential because no country has sustained global influence without a strong productive economy. India has been emphasizing on infrastructure development through highways, ports, airports, dedicated freight corridors, logistics networks, and digital public infrastructure. Thorough such initiatives, it seeks to enhance long-term competitiveness.

Defence modernisation has accelerated significantly through indigenous manufacturing, missile development, naval expansion, aerospace capabilities, cyber preparedness, and defence reforms. Indigenous programmes under Atmanirbhar Bharat increasingly seek to reduce dependence on imported military equipment.

The experience of Operation Sindoor demonstrated improvements in India's military preparedness and technological capabilities while also highlighting the importance of continued modernisation. Although every military operation has its own unique context and should be evaluated carefully, India's growing emphasis on self-reliance in defence reflects broader strategic thinking. Simultaneously, India's diplomatic initiatives ranging from vaccine assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic to humanitarian relief operations and evacuation missions, have strengthened its reputation as a responsible stakeholder. These developments suggest that India is investing first in comprehensive national capability rather than symbolic global activism.

A Civilizational Foundation for Global Leadership

Unlike many modern states whose international identity emerged primarily from military expansion, India's civilizational imagination has historically emphasised coexistence, dialogue, and shared prosperity. The Rig Veda offers a profound expression of this worldview:

संगच्छध्वं संवदध्वं

सं वो मनांसि जानताम्।

देवा भागं यथा पूर्वे

सञ्जानाना उपासते॥

Meaning move together; speak together; let your minds be united, just as the ancient gods shared their sacred offerings in harmony. This verse represents more than spiritual philosophy. It reflects an enduring political ethic that values consensus over coercion. Similarly, the Mahā Upanishad's celebrated ideal, "वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्," meaning the world is one family, has increasingly informed India's contemporary diplomatic messaging.

Sceptics may dismiss such concepts as rhetorical. Yet ideas matter in international politics. Harvard scholar Joseph Nye argues that soft power is the ability to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion. This forms an increasingly significant component of national influence. India's democratic institutions, civilizational heritage, yoga, Ayurveda, cultural diversity, diaspora, technological achievements, and humanitarian diplomacy together constitute important elements of its growing soft power. If supported by sustained economic and military capabilities, these civilizational values could become an important source of India's global legitimacy.

The Challenges That Cannot Be Ignored

Strategic patience alone does not guarantee national success. India faces formidable internal challenges. Employment generation for its expanding youth population remains critical. Manufacturing competitiveness must improve significantly if India wishes to become a genuine alternative in global supply chains. Educational quality, research capacity, judicial efficiency, urban governance, agricultural productivity, and technological innovation require continuous improvement.

Income inequality also demands careful attention. Rapid economic growth must translate into broader social mobility. Development that excludes substantial sections of society cannot sustain long-term national power. Climate resilience, energy security, water management, and demographic transitions will further shape India's future. History repeatedly demonstrates that great powers rise not merely because of military strength but because they successfully address internal governance challenges.

Looking Towards Viksit Bharat@2047

India's aspiration of becoming a developed nation by 2047 represents more than an economic objective. It reflects an attempt to transform national capacity across multiple sectors that include economic, technological, military, institutional, and civilizational.

Whether India ultimately becomes one of the world's leading powers will depend less upon dramatic diplomatic interventions and more upon disciplined domestic transformation. There will undoubtedly be occasions when India must assume greater international leadership, mediate conflicts, shape regional security, and contribute more actively to global governance. As its capabilities expand, expectations from the international community are also likely to increase. But enduring leadership cannot be improvised during crises. It must be patiently constructed over decades. Perhaps, therefore, India's current foreign policy should not be interpreted as silence. It may instead represent preparation.

Like every great civilisation that has experienced renewal, India recognises that the strongest voice in international politics belongs not merely to the nation that speaks the loudest during every conflict. It belongs to the nation that patiently builds comprehensive national strength before seeking to shape the future of the international order.

If India continues to modernise its economy, deepen technological innovation, strengthen national security, reduce social inequalities, empower its young population, and remain anchored in its civilizational ethos of dialogue and coexistence, it will not merely participate in the emerging world order but it will help define it. The decades ahead may well reveal that India's greatest strategic decision in the early twenty-first century was not speaking on every global crisis, but quietly preparing itself for a larger historical role.

Punjab's Long War: Terrorism, National Security and the Triumph of the Republic

 

The recent controversy surrounding the film ‘Sutlej’ has revived public debate over one of the darkest chapters in independent India's history, the Punjab insurgency. Surfacing in the 1980s, it remains one of the most consequential internal security challenges in the history of independent India. Between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s, the state witnessed political instability, religious radicalization, targeted killings, terrorism, and sustained cross-border support for militant organizations. Thousands of civilians, police personnel, members of the armed forces, public officials, journalists, and militants lost their lives.

Although the Punjab insurgency has largely been brought under control within India, traces of its separatist ideology remain visible beyond the country’s borders, particularly in Canada and the United States. Within India, especially in Punjab, the threat presently appears to be contained. Nevertheless, certain external forces continue to sustain the separatist cause by providing it with ideological, financial, and organisational support. India must, therefore, remain vigilant.

It is in this contemporary context that a serious discussion of the grave national security crisis that emerged in Punjab during the 1970s and 1980s becomes both necessary and relevant. Revisiting that turbulent period is not merely an exercise in recalling the past; it is essential for understanding how political miscalculations, religious extremism and foreign interference can combine to threaten the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation.

Punjab after Independence

The Partition of India in 1947 profoundly shaped Punjab's political and social landscape. The province suffered one of the largest and most violent population transfers in modern history. Millions who crossed the newly drawn borders were compelled to live in misery. Despite these traumatic beginnings, Indian Punjab emerged as one of the country's most dynamic states. Refugees rebuilt businesses, agriculture expanded rapidly, and educational institutions flourished. Sikhs played a distinguished role in the armed forces, agriculture, industry, public administration, and national politics. Punjab became an important symbol of India's resilience after Partition.

During the late 1960s and 1970s, Punjab became the centre of India's Green Revolution. High-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, irrigation expansion, improved agricultural practices and institutional support dramatically increased food production. Punjab became the nation's food bowl and contributed significantly to India's food security.

However, the linguistic reorganization of states also transformed Punjab. After prolonged political movements, the state was reorganized in 1966, resulting in the creation of the present-day Punjab, Haryana, and the transfer of certain hill areas to Himachal Pradesh. While the reorganization addressed some demands, issues relating to Chandigarh, river-water sharing and Centre-State relations remained contentious for decades.

The Anandpur Sahib Resolution

One of the most debated documents in modern Punjab politics is the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, adopted by the Shiromani Akali Dal in 1973. The Resolution combined religious, economic and political demands. It sought greater federal autonomy for states within India's constitutional framework, advocated protection of Sikh religious institutions, raised issues relating to Chandigarh and river waters, and emphasized the rights of Punjab.

Interpretations of the Resolution have varied considerably. Akali leaders maintained that it was fundamentally a federalist document seeking decentralization rather than secession. Some political commentators, however, viewed parts of its language with suspicion during a period of increasing political polarization. Whatever the interpretation, the Resolution became an important reference point in subsequent political mobilization.

Political Competition and the Rise of Religious Mobilization

The political rivalry between the Indian National Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal intensified during the late 1970s. Punjab witnessed coalition politics, shifting alliances and frequent contests over the representation of Sikh political aspirations.

In an effort to weaken the growing political influence of the Akali Dal, sections of the Congress leadership began promoting more fanatic Sikh religious figures. The political calculation behind such an act was that this could divide the Akali support base and reduce the party’s political strength. The Akali Dal, in turn, responded by adopting an increasingly religious and confrontational posture. Thus, competing political forces, driven by short-term electoral interests, contributed to the intensification of religious radicalism in Punjab.

The Emergence of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Against this backdrop emerged Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, head of the Damdami Taksal, an influential Sikh religious institution. Initially known as a preacher advocating a return to orthodox Sikh practices, Bhindranwale attracted considerable attention among sections of rural Sikh youth through his forceful oratory and emphasis on religious discipline. His appeal grew during a period of political uncertainty and increasing confrontation between competing political actors.

The turning point came after a series of violent incidents, including the clash between members of the Sant Nirankari Mission and orthodox Sikhs in Amritsar in 1978. These events intensified religious polarization and elevated Bhindranwale's public profile.

As violence increased in the early 1980s, Bhindranwale became associated with a militant movement that increasingly rejected constitutional politics. His supporters portrayed him as a defender of Sikh interests. But in reality, he was encouraging armed extremism and legitimizing violence among Sikh youth. His rhetoric and growing influence became central to the radicalization in Punjab.

From Political Agitation to Armed Insurgency

By the early 1980s, Punjab had entered a dangerous phase. Political negotiations repeatedly stalled, public trust declined, and targeted killings increased. Journalists, police officers, public officials and civilians became victims of violence. Fear spread across towns and villages. Moderate voices found themselves squeezed between militant intimidation and political confrontation. As institutions weakened, extremist organizations gained greater operational space.

The deterioration of law and order also attracted the attention of hostile external actors. Pakistan, still nursing the wounds of its 1971 war defeat, increasingly viewed instability in Punjab as an opportunity to weaken India through indirect means. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) started providing training, funding, weapons, and sanctuary to several Khalistani militant organizations. This development became a serious challenge to India's internal security.

Punjab's Long War: Operation Blue Star, 1984 and the Internationalisation of the Insurgency

By 1983, Punjab had entered one of the gravest internal security crises in independent India's history. Targeted assassinations, extortion, intimidation of public officials and attacks on civilians had become increasingly frequent. Police stations, government offices and political workers were under sustained threat. Moderate Sikh leaders who rejected violence found themselves caught between militant coercion and an increasingly strained political environment.

During this period, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and several armed associates established themselves within the Golden Temple complex at Amritsar, particularly in and around the Akal Takht. Alongside Bhindranwale were former Major General Shabeg Singh and Amrik Singh, who significantly contributed to the fortification of the Golden Temple. Weapons, ammunition, fortified positions and communication systems, smuggled from Pakistan, had been assembled inside the complex. This presented an unprecedented challenge for the Indian state.

For the Government of India, the dilemma was profound. The Golden Temple is among Sikhism's holiest shrines, revered by millions across the world. Any security operation inside the complex risked causing deep religious hurt. At the same time, allowing armed militants to continue operating from within a sacred place undermined the authority of the state and complicated policing. Months of negotiations failed to produce a settlement. Against this backdrop, the Government led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered Operation Blue Star, which commenced in early June 1984.

The operation involved units of the Indian Army supported by other security agencies. After intense fighting, the security forces regained control of the complex. Bhindranwale, Shabeg Singh, and several leading militants were killed. The operation also resulted in the deaths of soldiers, pilgrims, and civilians. In this operation, significant damage was caused to the Akal Takht.

From a purely military standpoint, Operation Blue Star succeeded in removing armed militants from the Golden Temple complex. Politically and psychologically, however, its consequences were far-reaching. For many Sikhs, military action within such a sacred religious site caused profound anguish, regardless of their views on militancy. This emotional impact resonated not only within Punjab but also among Sikh communities abroad.

The situation deteriorated further on 31 October 1984, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh. It was followed by the horrific anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and several other cities. Thousands of innocent Sikhs were killed, homes and businesses were destroyed, and countless families were displaced. The failure of the administration to prevent the violence and the slow pace of accountability became one of the darkest episodes in the history of independent India. The riots represented a grave failure of the constitutional duty of the state to protect its citizens and left enduring scars on India's social fabric.

The insurgency that followed cannot be understood without recognising the impact of these events. Militant organisations exploited the trauma and anger generated by both Operation Blue Star and the anti-Sikh riots to recruit supporters and strengthen extremist narratives. Yet it is equally important to recognise that the overwhelming majority of Sikhs neither joined militant organisations nor supported secession. Sikh officers continued to serve with distinction in the Army, police, civil services and intelligence agencies, while countless Sikh citizens rejected violence despite immense social and political pressures.

As Punjab struggled with internal instability, Pakistan increasingly sought to exploit the situation. Following its defeat in the 1971 war and the emergence of Bangladesh, Pakistan's military establishment adopted a greater emphasis on indirect or proxy strategies against India. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence played key role in supporting Khalistani militant organisations through training, funding, arms supply, forged documents, communications equipment and safe havens across the international border.

Militant organisations such as the Babbar Khalsa International, Khalistan Commando Force, Khalistan Liberation Force and others were among those that received varying forms of cross-border support during different phases of the insurgency. Arms trafficking networks expanded, infiltration routes became more sophisticated, and propaganda efforts increasingly reached out to sections of the Sikh diaspora.

Some retired Indian military and intelligence officials have referred to an alleged Pakistani strategic concept popularly described as "Operation Topac." According to these accounts, the strategy envisaged encouraging insurgencies in regions such as Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir in order to weaken India through prolonged proxy conflict. Pakistan's security establishment provided substantial support to militant groups seeking to destabilise Punjab.

By the mid-1980s, Punjab had effectively become the site of a complex internal security conflict shaped by both domestic and external factors. Political grievances, extremist mobilisation, traumatic communal violence and sustained foreign assistance combined to prolong the insurgency. Ordinary citizens bore the greatest burden. Farmers feared travelling after dark. Shopkeepers faced extortion. Teachers, journalists, judges, civil servants and police officers were routinely threatened. Democratic institutions struggled to function under conditions of fear.

The experience underscored a broader lesson in national security: when violent extremism acquires external support, the challenge extends beyond ordinary policing. It demands coordinated intelligence, effective law enforcement, political engagement, community cooperation and sustained constitutional governance.

By the late 1980s, the Indian state began adapting its strategy. Intelligence coordination improved, the Punjab Police was reorganised, and a more focused counter-insurgency campaign emerged. It was during this phase that officers such as Julio Ribeiro and later K. P. S. Gill assumed central roles in restoring the authority of the state. Their leadership, together with the courage of thousands of police personnel, soldiers, intelligence officers, and ordinary citizens, would become decisive in reversing the momentum of the insurgency.

Punjab's Long War and Restoring Peace: The Role of Supercop K. P. S. Gill

By the late 1980s, Punjab had reached a critical juncture. Years of assassinations, bombings, extortion, and intimidation had weakened public confidence in the state's ability to maintain law and order. Terrorist groups exercised influence over vast sections of rural Punjab, public officials worked under constant threat, and even moderate religious and political leaders who rejected violence found themselves targeted. The challenge before the Indian state was no longer merely to suppress terrorism but to restore citizens' faith in constitutional governance.

The response that gradually emerged marked a significant shift in India's counter-insurgency strategy. Instead of relying primarily on large-scale military deployments, greater emphasis was placed on intelligence-led policing, close coordination between central and state agencies, dismantling militant networks, protecting witnesses and rebuilding the confidence of ordinary citizens.

A key figure during this phase was Julio Ribeiro. Serving as Director General of Police during one of Punjab's most difficult periods, Ribeiro introduced an aggressive but intelligence-oriented approach to combating militancy. His emphasis on improving morale within the Punjab Police, strengthening intelligence gathering and encouraging officers to reclaim the initiative laid an important institutional foundation for the years that followed.

Building upon these efforts, K. P. S. Gill assumed leadership at a decisive moment in the conflict. Under his command, the Punjab Police intensified its campaign against militant organisations. Working in coordination with central security agencies and intelligence services, the police sought to identify leadership structures, disrupt financial and logistical networks, and reduce the operational capabilities of insurgent groups.

Gill's greatest contribution was restoring confidence within the police force itself. For years, police officers had operated under extraordinary pressure. Militants routinely targeted officers and their families, hoping to break morale and discourage enforcement. Rebuilding institutional confidence was therefore as important as conducting operations against insurgent groups.

One of the defining moments of this period was Operation Black Thunder under the ablest leadership of K.P.S. Gill, conducted in 1988. Unlike Operation Blue Star, which involved the deployment of the Army in a highly sensitive religious complex, Operation Black Thunder relied heavily on careful planning and intelligence coordination. K. P. S. Gill gradually isolated armed militants who had again occupied the Golden Temple complex.

The operation demonstrated important tactical lessons. Security forces surrounded the complex, controlled movement, restricted supplies, and applied sustained pressure rather than launching an immediate large-scale assault. Many militants eventually surrendered, and the operation resulted in comparatively less structural damage to the shrine than had occurred during Operation Blue Star.

Operation Black Thunder was significant not only because of its immediate outcome but because it demonstrated that patient, intelligence-driven operations. It could successfully isolate militant organisations while reducing the wider political and emotional consequences associated with military intervention at religious sites.

The campaign that followed was long, difficult, and costly. Hundreds of police personnel were killed in the line of duty. Many officers lived under assumed identities, changed residences frequently, or sent their families away for safety. Village defence committees, local informants, and ordinary citizens who cooperated with the authorities also faced grave risks. In certain cases Hindus in Punjab were selectively identified and killed mercilessly.

The eventual decline of militancy during the early and mid-1990s resulted from several interacting factors. Sustained police operations disrupted militant leadership. Improved intelligence reduced cross-border infiltration. Sections of the local population increasingly rejected violence as its human and economic costs became unbearable. Political institutions gradually resumed functioning, and normal civic life slowly returned.

The restoration of peace in Punjab also represented a setback to Pakistan that had hoped to sustain a prolonged proxy conflict. Numerous investigations and security assessments have documented attempts by Pakistan-based networks to continue supporting militant organisations through training, funding and propaganda. Nevertheless, as militant structures weakened within Punjab itself, the capacity of external actors to influence events diminished significantly.

The Punjab experience offers several enduring lessons for democratic states confronting violent extremism. The first lesson is that political competition must never legitimise or encourage extremist forces for short-term electoral advantage. Democratic rivalries are inevitable, but history demonstrates that movements built upon violence rarely remain under political control.

The second lesson concerns the relationship between national security and constitutional governance. A democratic state has an obligation to protect the lives and liberties of its citizens. Effective policing, intelligence coordination and counter-terrorism are therefore not contrary to democracy. Instead, they are among the conditions that enable democratic institutions to function.

The third lesson is the importance of community participation. Punjab did not recover solely because of government action. It recovered because ordinary Punjabis increasingly refused to allow terrorism to define their future. Farmers, teachers, traders, religious leaders, journalists, civil servants and countless unnamed citizens chose to cooperate with constitutional institutions rather than submit to intimidation.

Equally significant is the reminder that terrorism should never be conflated with an entire religious or social community. During the insurgency, Sikhs served with distinction throughout the Indian Army, the Punjab Police, the intelligence services and the civil administration. Thousands risked, and many lost, their lives defending fellow citizens irrespective of religion. The struggle against Khalistani militancy was therefore not a conflict between the Indian state and Sikhism. It was a struggle between constitutional democracy and those who sought to achieve political objectives through violence.

Today, Punjab stands transformed from the dark years of widespread terrorism. Its universities educate new generations, its farmers continue to contribute to national food security, its industries and entrepreneurs drive economic activity, and its youth participate in every sphere of Indian public life. However, as noted in the introductory part, the memory of violence has not disappeared, but neither has the resilience that enabled the state to recover.

The debates generated by films, books and public commentary on this period therefore carry an important responsibility. Historical memory should not romanticise terrorism. It should recognise the sacrifices of police personnel, soldiers, intelligence officers, public servants, and ordinary citizens. Demonizing the contributions of heroes like K. P. S. Gill is absolutely uncalled for.

Beyond Genetics: The Civilizational Meaning of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto's Indian DNA Remarks

 

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's state visit to Jakarta from July 6 to July 8, 2026, remarked that his genome sequencing test had revealed traces of Indian ancestry. At first glance, it appeared to be a light-hearted personal observation. Yet the significance of his statement lay far beyond genetics. It symbolized something far deeper: the enduring civilizational relationship between India and Indonesia. This relationship has survived despite political transformations, religious change, and the passage of centuries.

President Prabowo's remarks came naturally rather than as a carefully crafted diplomatic statement. Speaking before members of the Indian diaspora, he humorously observed that whenever he hears Indian music, his body instinctively begins to move. He jokingly suggested that perhaps many of his ministers also possess Indian DNA because they, too, love Indian songs and dances. More significantly, he openly acknowledged that he had closely followed Prime Minister Narendra Modi's developmental journey and had adopted several of India's successful governance initiatives for Indonesia. Such candid admiration from the leader of the world's largest Muslim-majority nation deserves careful reflection.

The President's statement reminds us of an important historical reality. Civilizations often leave legacies far more enduring than empires. Political boundaries change. Kingdoms disappear. Religions spread across continents. Yet civilizational memories continue to shape societies for centuries. Few examples illustrate this better than the historical relationship between India and Southeast Asia.

Long before European colonial powers entered Asia, Indian merchants, monks, scholars, and seafarers had established vibrant cultural networks across the Indian Ocean. Unlike European colonialism, these exchanges were not built upon conquest or political domination. They were founded upon commerce, pilgrimage, scholarship, and cultural interaction. Sanskrit became the language of administration and learning across much of Southeast Asia. Hindu and Buddhist philosophies influenced political institutions, legal traditions, literature, architecture, and art from present-day Myanmar to Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Indonesia perhaps represents the finest example of this civilizational continuity. It is home to nearly 240 million Muslims and is recognised as the world's largest Muslim-majority nation. However, it has never attempted to erase the memory of its pre-Islamic past. Instead, it has consciously preserved and celebrated that inheritance as an integral part of Indonesian national identity.

The magnificent Prambanan Temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva, remains one of the greatest Hindu temple complexes in the world. The equally spectacular Borobudur Buddhist temple reflects the same Indic civilizational influence. Every year, thousands of Indonesians and international visitors witness the famous Ramayana Ballet performed against the backdrop of Prambanan. The ancient epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata continue to live through the traditional Wayang Kulit shadow theatre. Sanskrit words remain deeply embedded in Bahasa Indonesia. Indonesia's national emblem is Garuda, the divine vehicle of Lord Vishnu. Its national motto, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, "Unity in Diversity", originates from a fourteenth-century Javanese poem written during the Majapahit Empire. It is deeply influenced by Hindu-Buddhist philosophy.

Indonesia has even honoured Lord Ganesha, the deity associated with wisdom and learning, on its Rp20, 000 banknote issued in the late 1990s. Outside the Indonesian Embassy in Washington, D.C., stands a majestic statue of Goddess Sarasvati, symbolising knowledge, learning and culture. None of these symbols are viewed as contradictory to Indonesia's present religious demography. Instead, they are embraced as expressions of the nation's historical and civilizational identity.

This distinction between religion and civilization deserves serious attention in India. A change in religious belief does not necessarily require a rejection of one's civilizational inheritance. Indonesia demonstrates that Islam and historical memory can coexist without contradiction. The country accepted Islam over several centuries through trade, Sufi traditions, and social interaction. However, it did not feel compelled to abandon the cultural legacy of its ancestors. Indonesian people recognise that their history did not begin with religious conversion; it stretches much further back.

This raises an important question for India. Can a society change its faith while continuing to acknowledge the civilization from which it emerged? Or does religious conversion necessarily demand the rejection of ancestral identity? These questions are neither theological nor communal. They are questions of history, national identity, and civilizational continuity.

For India, where civilization stretches uninterrupted across millennia, these questions assume even greater significance. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen complete freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion. That constitutional guarantee is beyond dispute. However, constitutional freedom of religion does not automatically require civilizational amnesia. Religious identity and civilizational belonging need not be mutually exclusive. Indonesia's experience suggests precisely that.

Perhaps the greatest lesson emerging from President Prabowo Subianto's seemingly casual remark is not about genetics at all. Rather, it is about the confidence of a nation that can embrace a new religious identity without feeling compelled to deny the civilization that shaped its historical personality. That confidence offers India an important opportunity for reflection.

Shared Ancestry, Civilizational Identity and Dr. Ambedkar's Warning

Indonesia's example naturally invites India to reflect upon a deeper question: What constitutes nationhood? Is a nation merely a political arrangement of citizens living within defined territorial boundaries, or is it also a shared civilizational consciousness that binds generations across time?

For thousands of years, the Indian subcontinent has been one of the world's great civilizational spaces. From the Himalayas to Kanyakumari, and from Dwarka to Kamakhya, diverse communities evolved different languages, customs and regional identities. Despite that, they remained connected through common cultural symbols, sacred geography, pilgrimage traditions, epics, philosophies, and systems of knowledge. India's unity has never rested upon uniformity; rather, it has emerged from an extraordinary capacity to integrate diversity within a broad civilizational framework.

Modern advances in population genetics broadly reinforce this historical understanding. Numerous scientific studies suggest that the overwhelming majority of Indians, irrespective of their present religious affiliation, share deep ancestral roots that have evolved over thousands of years on the Indian subcontinent. While faith may change over generations, ancestry does not. Religious conversion can alter one's spiritual beliefs, but it cannot erase one's historical origins.

This distinction between faith and ancestry is fundamental. Religious identity belongs to the domain of individual conscience. Civilizational identity belongs to the collective historical memory of a people. One concerns personal belief; the other concerns historical belonging. The two need not be in conflict.

Indonesia demonstrates precisely this possibility. Although Islam became the dominant religion, Indonesian Muslims have generally continued to acknowledge the civilizational heritage of Majapahit, Srivijaya, Prambanan, Ramayana and Garuda as part of their national identity. Their religious faith did not compel them to reject their historical inheritance.

India's experience has been considerably more complex. The arrival of Islam introduced not merely a new religion but, over time, new political ideas, legal traditions and transnational religious solidarities. These developments profoundly influenced the politics of late colonial India. It is within this historical context that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's classic work ‘Pakistan or the Partition of India’ deserves careful attention.

Ambedkar approached this issue as a constitutional thinker and political realist. His central concern was the practical challenge of nation-building in a deeply divided society. He examined the emergence of the Muslim League, the growth of pan-Islamic political consciousness, separate electorates, constitutional negotiations, and competing ideas of nationhood. His analysis was rooted not in emotion but in political sociology and constitutional realism.

One of Ambedkar's important observations was that where religious identity begins to supersede territorial nationalism, serious political tensions may emerge. He argued that a stable nation-state requires citizens whose primary political loyalty is directed towards the nation itself. If competing political allegiances transcend national boundaries, the process of nation-building becomes considerably more difficult.

Therefore there is a need to understand Dr. Ambedkar’s observations in their historical setting. The elections of 1945–46 marked a decisive turning point. The Muslim League secured overwhelming success in Muslim-reserved constituencies under the limited colonial franchise. It used these results to strengthen its claim that it alone represented Muslim political aspirations. This electoral outcome considerably strengthened Muhammad Ali Jinnah's demand for Pakistan.

India became partitioned and left behind difficult questions that continue to shape India's strategic thinking. India’s partition led to traumatic violence of 1947, repeated conflicts with Pakistan, cross-border terrorism, and continuing radicalization of certain sections of Muslims. These developments suggest that national security remains inseparable from questions of national cohesion.

It is in this context that contemporary strategic discourse refers to India's requirement for preparedness against "two-and-a-half fronts." China on one front, Pakistan on another, and the possibility of internal security challenges arising from radicalisation or terrorism. This formulation reflects assessments made by several Indian defence and security experts regarding the complexity of India's security environment.

The lesson here is not that religious diversity weakens a nation. India itself disproves such an argument every day. Rather, the lesson is that national unity ultimately depends upon a shared commitment to the sovereignty, constitutional order and civilizational continuity of the Republic.

The Indian Constitution wisely guarantees complete freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28. That freedom is non-negotiable. However, constitutional secularism does not require civilizational neutrality. Citizens may freely practise different religions while simultaneously taking pride in the civilization that gave birth to the Indian nation.

That is precisely where Indonesia offers an instructive comparison. Indonesian Muslims do not appear uncomfortable acknowledging Ramayana, Garuda, or Saraswati as part of their national heritage. Their acceptance of Islam did not require civilizational amnesia.

The question before India, therefore, is neither theological nor constitutional. It is civilizational. Can every Indian, irrespective of religious belief, acknowledge that this ancient civilization belongs equally to all who have inherited it? If the answer is yes, then India's unity becomes stronger. If the answer is no, then divisions inherited from history risk continuing into the future.

Perhaps the true significance of President Prabowo Subianto's statement lies not in the science of DNA but in the philosophy of identity. His remarks remind us that ancestry is a bridge, not a barrier. It is a source of shared belonging rather than division. Civilizations endure because they are remembered, cherished, and carried forward, not because they remain frozen in time.

Civilizational Nationalism, the Nation-State and India's Strategic Future

President Prabowo Subianto's remarks acquire even greater significance when viewed through the lens of contemporary international politics. While his observation about possessing "Indian DNA" may have appeared personal, the larger message concerns the relationship between civilization and nationhood. In the twenty-first century, when geopolitics is increasingly influenced by identity, history and culture, nations that possess a confident understanding of their civilizational foundations often display greater strategic coherence.

The twentieth century witnessed repeated predictions that globalization would gradually weaken the importance of nation-states. International organizations, multinational corporations, transnational advocacy networks, and global markets were expected to redefine political authority. Some scholars even argued that national borders would eventually lose much of their significance.

Reality has unfolded quite differently. The COVID-19 pandemic reminded humanity that when crisis strikes, citizens ultimately turn not to international organizations but to their own governments. During wars, pandemics, natural disasters or economic crises, it is the nation-state that protects borders, mobilizes resources, ensures public order and safeguards the lives of its citizens. International institutions certainly perform valuable functions, but none possesses the sovereign authority or democratic legitimacy to replace the state.

Classical Realist scholars such as Hans Morgenthau argued that the international system is fundamentally shaped by the pursuit of national interest. Kenneth Waltz, through Structural Realism, similarly emphasized that the absence of a central global authority compels states to rely primarily upon their own capabilities for survival. Nearly two millennia earlier, Kautilya's Arthashastra had articulated a comparable insight through the Mandala Theory. He emphasized that states exist in a competitive strategic environment where prudence, preparedness and national cohesion remain indispensable.

These observations remain remarkably relevant in India's contemporary strategic environment. India today confronts one of the most complex geopolitical landscapes in its modern history. While the country's global stature has risen considerably, it simultaneously faces an increasingly assertive China. Beijing has repeatedly opposed India's aspiration for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council despite widespread international support. It delayed the listing of Pakistan-based terrorists at the United Nations Sanctions Committee for years before eventually relenting under sustained diplomatic pressure. It continues to oppose India's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, even while supporting countries that do not meet equivalent non-proliferation standards.

China's strategic behaviour extends beyond diplomatic forums. Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the expanding network often described as the "String of Pearls," Beijing has steadily enhanced its maritime presence across the Indian Ocean Region. Ports at Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and expanding engagements elsewhere have generated understandable strategic concerns in New Delhi. Simultaneously, the unresolved boundary dispute, periodic military stand-offs along the Line of Actual Control, and China's close strategic partnership with Pakistan continue to shape India's national security calculations.

These realities underscore a fundamental principle of International Relations: external security is inseparable from internal cohesion. No country can aspire to become a major power if its society remains internally fragmented or uncertain about its own civilizational foundations. Military strength, economic growth and technological advancement are undoubtedly essential. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that enduring national power ultimately rests upon a deeper foundation, a shared sense of belonging among citizens.

It is here that Indonesia offers an instructive lesson. Despite being home to the world's largest Muslim population, Indonesia has consciously integrated its Hindu-Buddhist civilizational inheritance into its national identity. The country's Islamic faith has not diminished its pride in Ramayana, Garuda, Sanskrit, Prambanan or Saraswati. Instead, these symbols have become cultural resources that strengthen Indonesian nationalism rather than weaken it.

India's civilizational experience has historically been even more inclusive. The Indian civilization has absorbed and accommodated diverse philosophical traditions, religious communities and cultural influences over millennia. Hinduism itself evolved not as a rigid doctrinal system but as an expansive civilizational framework capable of accommodating plurality. It is precisely this openness that enabled India to remain a continuous civilization despite repeated political upheavals.

Yet civilizational confidence requires continuity of historical memory. A nation cannot remain intellectually confident if successive generations become disconnected from the cultural traditions, philosophical ideas and historical experiences that shaped its identity. Such continuity does not imply religious uniformity, nor does it diminish constitutional secularism. Rather, it acknowledges that citizens belonging to different faiths can still inherit, respect and celebrate a common civilizational legacy.

This distinction becomes particularly important when viewed alongside India's Act East Policy. Contemporary India's engagement with Southeast Asia is often presented in strategic or economic terms, trade, connectivity, maritime security and Indo-Pacific cooperation. While these dimensions are undoubtedly important, India's greatest strength in Southeast Asia has always been civilizational diplomacy. Long before modern diplomacy existed, Indian ideas travelled across the seas through merchants, monks, scholars, artisans and pilgrims. Temples, inscriptions, languages, literature and performing arts continue to testify to these centuries-old connections.

President Prabowo's remarks therefore possess significance far beyond diplomacy. They remind Indians that civilizational influence cannot be measured merely by territorial expansion or military conquest. The most enduring civilizations shape minds rather than merely extending political frontiers.

India's relationship with Indonesia illustrates precisely this phenomenon. There was no Indian empire governing Java or Bali. Yet Indian civilization profoundly influenced the region through knowledge, philosophy, trade, literature and culture. This represents one of the earliest and finest examples of what contemporary scholars describe as soft power.

Ultimately, the debate initiated by President Prabowo's statement is not about genetics. DNA sequencing cannot define civilization. Civilizations are sustained through memory, institutions, values, and shared historical consciousness. His observation serves as a metaphor for a much deeper truth that people may adopt different religious beliefs while remaining connected to the civilizational heritage from which they emerged.

For India, this lesson is especially relevant. The Republic is strongest when every citizen, irrespective of religion, language, caste or region, feels an equal sense of ownership over India's civilizational inheritance. Such ownership neither diminishes religious freedom nor challenges constitutional equality. Instead, it strengthens national integration by reminding citizens that their shared history is older than their differences.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar understood that the durability of a nation ultimately depends not merely upon constitutional arrangements but upon the willingness of its citizens to place the nation above competing political loyalties. President Prabowo's remarks similarly remind us that civilizational memory can become a powerful force for national cohesion rather than division. Perhaps, therefore, the most important lesson from Indonesia is neither political nor religious. It is civilizational. A nation confident in its roots needs never fear its future.

As India advances towards the vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, economic growth, military preparedness and technological innovation will remain indispensable. Equally indispensable, however, will be the cultivation of a shared civilizational consciousness that binds 1.4 billion Indians into a confident national community. Faith may guide the soul, but civilization shapes the nation's collective memory. Preserving that memory while embracing modernity may well become India's greatest strategic advantage in the twenty-first century.