India’s public life now swings between two registers: civilizational grandiosity and managerial caution, between invoking a 5,000-year heritage and drafting five-year plans. Seventy-seven years after Independence, that very oscillation reveals something uncomfortable: we are still arguing over who we are, instead of fixing how we are governed.

The tug-of-war is familiar. One side insists that India must shed post-colonial diffidence and assert its civilizational heritage unapologetically. The other warns that such politics—untethered from institutional capacity and economic reality—risks strategic overreach and domestic fragility. Both contain elements of truth. Both also miss the deeper problem.

At its core, India’s impasse is not simply about pride versus realism. It is about our persistent failure to construct a shared civic identity that neither erases difference nor weaponises it, that does not ask some citizens to treat their belonging as conditional on the narratives of others.

The limits of civilizational pride

The civilizational frame promises to solve India’s identity question by appealing to a common heritage. It claims that drawing on “Hindu civilisation” will generate unity while still “honouring diversity.” But the logic contains a quiet hierarchy that no amount of rhetoric can disguise.

The difficulty lies in the claim that a majoritarian heritage is the natural, unquestioned foundation of national identity, while other traditions—Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, tribal—are cast as later arrivals, embellishments or local variations. That is not synthesis; it is graded belonging. It is the difference between tolerance, in which a majority benignly permits others to exist, and constitutional equality, in which every citizen owns the republic equally.

Once civilizational pride becomes the organising principle, diversity is reimagined. It is no longer a structural feature of the republic but a set of cultural ornaments that decorate an already-complete core. Communities are valued for how well they affirm the dominant story, not for their inherent status as co-equal citizens. Brotherhood becomes conditional, a reward for conformity, rather than the starting point of politics.

There is a further danger. Civilizational narratives often become substitutes for institutional performance. When employment generation falters, when public education decays, when the justice system is slow or arbitrary, there is a temptation to reach for mythic assertions of greatness as emotional compensation. Self-assertion without delivery produces a brittle nationalism—loud in speech, thin in achievement.

The technocratic trap

Yet the alternative on offer—sober realism, technocratic competence, the language of GDP and investment—has its own blind spots. There is a version of “pragmatic” politics that reduces national purpose to economic metrics, efficiency targets and institutional reform checklists. It promises order and growth, but often struggles to articulate why people should feel attached to the project beyond material gain.

India’s challenges are indeed formidable: uneven private investment, jobless growth, widening regional disparities, environmental stress, institutional weakening. These demand serious policy work and administrative reform, not rhetorical distraction. But a purely instrumental vision of nationhood—democracy as a delivery mechanism for services and stability—cannot, by itself, sustain political community.

Nations need animating ideals: reasons to sacrifice, compromise and trust beyond immediate self-interest. If civilizational nostalgia offers an exclusionary story, technocratic managerialism risks offering no story at all—only spreadsheets and dashboards. Neither is sufficient for a country of India’s scale and diversity.

The missing civic synthesis

What India requires is not a choice between pride and realism, but a reframing of both. The real task is to construct a civic nationalism in which diversity is neither a “problem” to be controlled nor a resource to be deployed, but the starting condition of the republic.

Such a nationalism would rest on at least four pillars.

First, constitutional patriotism over civilizational nostalgia. Real confidence should flow from what India has attempted since 1947: building and sustaining an electoral, rights-based, multi-religious democracy in conditions many thought impossible. That experiment is incomplete and uneven, but it is historically extraordinary. A mature pride would celebrate the Constitution’s egalitarian promise, not mythic accounts of a golden past.

Second, reciprocal citizenship beyond tolerance. Every community must experience the republic as common property, not as someone else’s civilizational home into which they have been admitted. This is not a semantic distinction. When minorities (religious, linguistic, regional, ideological) feel that their belonging is always under review, the promise of equal citizenship becomes hollow. A stable polity cannot rest on implicit tests of loyalty.

Third, performance legitimacy grounded in human development. National pride, ultimately, must be anchored in measurable outcomes: education, health, employment, institutional fairness. Ancient achievements lend cultural depth, but they cannot substitute for contemporary delivery. Civilisations are judged by how they treat their living members, not merely by the splendour of their monuments or the antiquity of their texts.

Fourth, historical honesty without therapeutic victimhood. A mature democracy acknowledges past injustices and present exclusions without turning grievance into permanent identity. It can recognise colonial exploitation without using it to excuse today’s governance failures; it can celebrate syncretic traditions while admitting episodes of communal violence and caste oppression. The point is to integrate history, not to be imprisoned by it.

Strategic consequences of domestic choices

These questions are not abstract. India’s domestic political choices shape its strategic position more than any slogan about being a “Vishwaguru” or “leading power.”

When a state that champions a “rules-based international order” appears cavalier about the rule of law at home, its claims sound less persuasive. When a country that presents itself as the world’s largest democracy tolerates, or worse, normalises the marginalisation of some of its own citizens, its soft power erodes. Moral authority is not a renewable resource; it is accumulated slowly and squandered quickly.

The geopolitical moment is also unforgiving. China’s challenge to India is not merely military or economic; it is philosophical. The Chinese Communist Party’s argument, explicit or implied, is that diverse, developing societies require centralised, authoritarian control to modernise at scale—that democracy is a luxury or a distraction. India’s counter cannot be rhetorical flourishes about civilisation. It has to be empirical demonstration: that a noisy, plural, rights-based democracy can deliver security, prosperity and dignity more reliably than command-and-control systems.

Doing so demands institutions that function impartially, rights that are more than paper promises, and a public culture that does not treat disagreement as treachery. Without that, civilizational talk becomes a mask for insecurity, and “realism” shrinks into narrow, regime-protection calculus.

Beyond false binaries

The way out of India’s identity impasse is not to suppress pride in favour of cold realism, or vice versa. It is to understand that sustainable pride must grow out of realism—specifically, a realism about our institutions, inequalities and vulnerabilities.

India does possess real civilizational assets: traditions of philosophical argument, long histories of coexistence, figures—from the Buddha to Kabir and Nanak—who articulated visions of unity that cut across surface identities. But those resources are degraded when they are deployed as political weapons in contemporary contestation. Diversity becomes “strength” only when it is lived as equal citizenship, not showcased as cultural tourism or campaign imagery.

The present debate between civilizational pride and strategic sobriety, in that sense, is a symptom of arrested development. We remain locked in arguments about what India fundamentally “is”—Hindu civilisation, post-colonial democracy, emerging power—rather than building the institutional architecture that would allow multiple identities to coexist without constant friction.

National maturity would look different. It would mean a political culture that can celebrate religious festivals and constitutional milestones with equal conviction; that can invest in military capability while also insisting on civilian accountability and legal restraint; that can talk of ancient texts and contemporary rights in the same breath without feeling any contradiction.

Such a culture would cultivate pride without illusion, realism without cynicism. It would seek power not as compensation for insecurity, but as a byproduct of improving the lives of its citizens and deepening the quality of its democracy.

India’s civilizational inheritance, at its best, teaches openness, argument and synthesis. The question is whether we can translate that inheritance into a modern republic that treats each citizen as an end, not as a means to a myth. The choice is no longer between being proud or being realistic. It is whether we can construct institutions and a civic ethos that make both possible—institutions worthy of pride, and a realism that serves, rather than excludes, the many Indias that live within the republic.

That remains our unfinished project. It is more urgent than the quarrels that distract us, and more achievable than we allow ourselves to believe.

Professor  Tamanna. M. Shah, Eric Wagner Professor of Anthropology & Sociology at Ohio University, USA.

© Greater Kashmir