Can freedom survive without order? Increasingly, the answer appears to be no.
Liberty without structure is fragile. It fractures under pressure, degenerates into chaos, and ultimately becomes susceptible to co-option—whether by demagogues, mobs, or malign external forces. Freedom, when unmoored from order, becomes not a birthright but a mirage—an illusion that dissolves the moment institutions falter, insurgencies erupt, or ideological fragmentation goes unchecked.
Freedom does not exist in a vacuum. It requires scaffolding: a dependable legal system, robust institutions, and a shared cultural framework that engineers stability. Only in societies where peace and predictability prevail do people begin to assert liberty as a right. Where violence dominates and governance collapses, survival supersedes sovereignty. Under such conditions, freedom is not merely endangered—it becomes irrelevant.
China’s modern trajectory exemplifies this logic. In the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, the Chinese Communist Party imposed an unforgiving form of political control. Yet it was precisely this imposition of order—ruthless though it was—that laid the groundwork for China’s meteoric rise. By extinguishing internal dissent, the CCP created the conditions necessary for long-term economic planning, infrastructure development, and integration into global markets. In three decades, China transitioned from inward-looking authoritarianism to a formidable global power—not because it embraced freedom, but because it prioritized stability.
The key insight is simple: chaos is the enemy of progress. Disorder—whether driven by ethnic strife, sectarian politics, or decaying institutions—has been one of India’s most enduring challenges. Since 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has brought a degree of cohesion and clarity to the governance model, restoring direction to a state long beset by drift. Yet, fault lines remain. From separatist movements to criminalized politics, several regions in India continue to struggle with chronic instability.
If India is serious about achieving the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047, political order cannot remain a rhetorical ambition—it must be institutionalized. And this requires a blunt reckoning with the inherited architecture of governance. Many of India's institutions are colonial holdovers—designed to rule a subjugated population, not empower a sovereign citizenry. Their functioning is slow, opaque, and frequently obstructive. Unless these institutions are thoroughly reformed, they will continue to frustrate developmental ambitions rather than facilitate them.
The Modi government has shown resolve in pockets, but systemic reform remains an unfinished—and perhaps deliberately avoided—agenda. Transforming governance demands more than technocratic tweaks; it requires political courage, intellectual clarity, and the ability to question sacrosanct liberal orthodoxies.
For instance, diversity is often celebrated as a national strength. But history offers a more sobering picture: societies with less internal fragmentation—more cohesive in religious cultural aspects—tend to move faster in achieving economic and cultural ascendancy. Homogeneity, for all its discomforts in polite discourse, has often gone hand in hand with order and effectiveness.
If India is to become a truly developed nation by 2047, it must make difficult choices. It must find ways to reduce friction—political, ethnic, administrative—and foster a more unified sense of purpose. That does not mean eliminating difference, but it does mean subordinating factionalism to national coherence. Political freedom, far from being the starting point, is the end product of a stable order and a flourishing society.
A republic is only as strong as the foundation it rests upon. India must decide whether it wants to be a nation permanently negotiating its internal contradictions—or one that builds durable order and, through it, secures lasting freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment