A Wake-Up Call for Every Bharatiya

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, for we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality." — Martin Luther King Jr. American activist, the most prominent leader of the civil rights movement, advocating for racial equality through nonviolent resistance. Justice loses its moral authority when, in its pursuit, it compromises the rights of the individual.

---

‘We the People of India’, the very first line of our constitution ensures every citizen of Bharat that he or she is the very much in centre of their policies and their rights will be ensured. It clearly emphasise the collectiveness of society at large beat religion, caste, creed. Along with this, it also ensures the rights each and every people to follow their own believes.

To safeguard the rights of every individual, India relies on democratic institutions as custodians and the Constitution as its guiding principle. These frameworks exist to ensure that justice is delivered fairly and without prejudice. Yet, moments arise that test the credibility of these safeguards.

In 2016, the University of Hyderabad, a central institution of higher learning, came under national scrutiny following the suicide of a student, Rohith Vemula. The incident triggered widespread concern and debate, raising difficult questions about social injustice on university campuses, the nature of campus politics, and the presence of discrimination within academic spaces. Even few reports suggested about his fake dalit certificate.

The Supreme court of India, while hearing the peal flied in Rohit Vemula & Payal Tadvi case, directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to consider safeguards to prevent caste-based discrimination while finalising new regulations to curb harassment and discrimination in higher educational institutions. The UGC rules on equality represent a serious institutional setback. More than a technical policy decision, they should serve as a wake-up call to every Bharatiya—regardless of political affiliation—that several of India’s core constitutional and social values are increasingly under strain.

Its classic case of creating a hate figure inside for unifying people of a section. It will lead to weaking the idea of Hindutva instead of strengthening.

Institutions such as the University Grants Commission occupy a critical space in India’s democratic ecosystem. They do not merely regulate systems; they shape norms, signal intent, and influence how principles like equality, inclusion, and fairness are interpreted in practice. When changes in such frameworks raise questions about the spirit of equality, the issue ceases to be procedural and becomes deeply moral and constitutional.

Equality in India is not a borrowed idea nor a recent innovation. The very idea from Vedas on equality is Sarva Loka Sukhino Bhavantu. It is embedded in the Constitution as both a legal guarantee and a civilisational aspiration. Articles on equality before the law, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity were framed with the understanding that India’s social diversity required not just formal neutrality, but substantive fairness. Any dilution—perceived or real—of this principle risks unsettling the delicate balance between unity and diversity that defines the republic.

It is important to note that this concern should not be reduced to partisan disagreement. Across India’s political history, the commitment to equality has survived changes in governments precisely because it is foundational, not ideological. When debates around equality become polarised, or when institutional decisions appear disconnected from social realities, public trust begins to erode. That erosion, if left unaddressed, weakens democratic legitimacy itself.

In 1979, then Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai established SEBCs under the chairmanship of BP Mandal and later implemented in 1990s by then Prime Minister VP Singh to counter the raising right politics with caste arithmetic. However, it raised huge uproar across nation resultant in form of losing election. It was just a start of campus politics of discrimination and somehow was against the spirit of Indian constitution.

Education occupies a particularly sensitive space in this discussion. Universities are not just centres of skill-building; they are spaces where constitutional values are transmitted across generations. Regulatory frameworks governing higher education must therefore be guided not only by efficiency or uniformity, but by sensitivity to social context and historical disadvantage. Equality in education has never meant sameness; it has meant fairness calibrated to lived realities.

India’s constitutional architects were acutely aware of this distinction. In his writings, Dr B.R. Ambedkar repeatedly warned that political equality without social equality would remain fragile. His vision was not of a society flattened into uniformity, but one elevated through justice. When institutional mechanisms appear to move away from this understanding, it invites legitimate concern and demands transparent public reasoning.

This moment must also be viewed against a broader national backdrop. India today is asserting itself with confidence—economically, technologically, and geopolitically. Digital public infrastructure, innovation ecosystems, and expanding global influence reflect a country in motion. Yet, national strength is not measured by capacity alone. It is equally measured by the moral coherence of institutions and the credibility of values they uphold.

Recent global experience offers a cautionary lesson. Societies that allow institutional decisions to drift away from shared ethical commitments often find themselves grappling with deep social fractures later. Equality, once weakened, is difficult to restore through policy alone. It requires trust, dialogue, and a visible commitment to fairness from those in authority. American thinker Francis Fukuyama writes in his recent writings that we must learn lessons from the examples placed from failed ideas to evolve with new dimensions of those periphery.

This is why the present moment calls for reflection rather than reaction. A wake-up call does not demand immediate outrage; it demands collective introspection. Are institutions sufficiently attentive to constitutional intent? Are policy decisions being communicated with clarity and accountability? And most importantly, are citizens across social and political lines willing to defend core values even when it is inconvenient?

For Bharatiyas, this is not merely a question of regulation, but of national character. India’s strength has always rested on its ability to accommodate difference without abandoning principle. Equality has functioned as the bridge between diversity, dignity and unity. Any perceived weakening of that bridge must be addressed with seriousness, not dismissal.

Ultimately, safeguarding equality is not the responsibility of courts or commissions alone. It is a shared civic duty. Institutions must act with constitutional fidelity, governments with restraint, and citizens with vigilance. The recent UGC rules, whatever their intent, have highlighted the fragility of this balance.

If this moment serves as a wake-up call—prompting institutional introspection, public debate, and renewed commitment to foundational values—it may yet strengthen the republic. If ignored, it risks becoming another quiet turning point where principles eroded not through open defiance, but through gradual neglect.

India’s future depends not only on how fast it grows, but on how faithfully it remembers who it is.

---

(The author is a journalist. These are the author's personal views.)