Honor Bharat Mata: Why Every Indian Should Cherish Our Constitution

In June 2025, Kerala found itself in a heated debate over a portrait. This wasn’t just any image but one depicting Bharathamba, dressed in saffron and mounted on a lion. The Governor of Kerala, Rajendra Viswanath Arlekar, insisted on featuring this portrait at official events, causing outrage among ministers, students, and various community groups.

While some might see this as a harmless display of patriotism, many recognize the deeper issues it raises. The portrait is closely tied to the Sangh Parivar’s ideology, which does not reflect the identity outlined by the Constitution. This situation prompts crucial questions: Is it right for a government official to push specific cultural symbols onto a diverse society? Does this prioritize ideology over constitutional values?

The Governor’s role is clearly defined in the Indian Constitution. Article 163 establishes that the Chief Minister and the council of ministers guide the Governor’s actions. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, during constitutional debates, referred to the Governor as largely ornamental—expected to follow the advice of elected officials. Supreme Court rulings, like in the case of Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974), reinforced that the Governor is meant to function within the democratic framework.

However, recent trends show a shift, particularly under the current BJP-led central government. Governors in opposition-led states often act as representatives of the central government rather than as constitutional protectors. This centralization goes against the federal principles upheld by the Supreme Court, which has previously cautioned against using constitutional provisions to undermine state governments.

The image of Bharat Mata dates back to the early 20th century when artist Abanindranath Tagore depicted her as a nurturing figure, part of the broader Swadeshi movement. In Tagore’s version, Bharat Mata was not adorned with militaristic symbols. However, over the years, the image has been reinterpreted by groups like the RSS to fit a more aggressive narrative, complete with swords and lions.

Legally, there’s no constitutional backing for the Bharat Mata portrait at public events. The Constitution recognizes only specific symbols, like the national flag and the anthem, as official. Attempts to impose unofficial symbols on official platforms challenge our nation’s secular principles.

In a landmark case involving Jehovah’s Witness students (Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v State of Kerala & Ors, 1986), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining individual rights within a democratic framework. A Governor emphasizing one ideological symbol over others risks undermining the diversity and secular balance that the Constitution champions.

Kerala has historically resisted divisive communal politics, boasting high human development and a politically aware populace. Yet recent efforts to introduce contentious themes suggest a strategic attempt to provoke and polarize opinions.

Ultimately, we must differentiate between genuine patriotism and divisive nationalism. The issue isn’t the image itself but the insistence on imposing a singular, ideologically charged symbol. The true essence of patriotism lies in upholding the Constitution, which guarantees equality and dignity for all citizens.

This situation reflects a larger narrative in contemporary India. As the political landscape shifts, the challenge remains: how do we honor our diverse identities while safeguarding constitutional integrity?

For more insight on constitutional values in India, you can refer to this Supreme Court judgment analysis.

Source link

Bharathamba, kerala, governor, kerala governor, Rajendra Viswanath Arlekar, Governor overnor Rajendra Viswanath Arlekar, nationalism, patriotism