Nevertheless, Gandhi’s recent remarks at the Samvidhan Suraksha Sammelan in Patna mark a telltale departure from his earlier rhetoric and reflect a broader evolution or perhaps recalibration of his ideological compass.
For years, Gandhi tirelessly espoused the view that India was a collection of administrative units fused only by the Constitution of 1950. This narrative, rooted in a selective reading of Article 1—”India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”—has been used to argue against a strong centralised identity, often playing into regionalist sentiments and linguistic divides, something which Congress has been desperately trying to exploit, especially with Gandhi’s repeated demands of ‘Caste Survey’ and polarising slogans of ‘Jiski Jitni Aabadi Uska Utna Haq’.
Notwithstanding the theatrics that Gandhi routinely lends himself to, his remarks have attracted strident criticism from several quarters, with many accusing him of undermining national unity, favouring a Balkanized imagination of India over its deeply rooted cultural cohesion.
But that narrative, it seems, is undergoing a metamorphosis—not in a vacuum, but against the backdrop of repeated electoral humiliations and setbacks faced by the Congress party across the length and breadth of the country. As Congress fails to capture the imagination of the nation’s teeming youth, with desertions being a recurrent theme throughout the party hierarchy, Gandhi is perhaps forced to swivel away from this divisive ideology to a country whose consciousness dates back centuries and with several preeminent individuals playing a part in nurturing it.
With Congress losing ground across state after state and failing to effectively counter the Modi-led BJP juggernaut, Rahul Gandhi appears to be recalibrating both his message and his method.
At the Patna event, Gandhi did what he often does – brandish the Constitution and sound alarm bells over its supposed impending demise. However, embedded within his familiar script was a surprising admission that caught both supporters and skeptics off the hop.
“People say that the Constitution was drafted in 1947. However, I believe that this Constitution is thousands of years old, and it includes thoughts of Ambedkar ji, Phule ji, Gandhi ji, Nehru ji, Guru Nanak ji and Kabir,” he said.
This was not just a rhetorical flourish. It was a marked withdrawal from his past insistence on the Constitution as the singular starting point of the Indian nation. By invoking names like Guru Nanak, Kabir, and other civilizational icons, Gandhi implicitly acknowledged what has been seared on the memories of Indians since time immemorial– that the country’s cultural and philosophical fabric predates 1947 by millennia. That its identity is not just political, but civilizational.
It was a remarkable climbdown for a leader who had been hard-selling the notion that India came into existence as a nation only decades ago, when the Constitution sanctioned it as the ‘Union of States’ in its Preamble. However, even as Gandhi went into raptures about India’s timeless civilisational continuity, invoking the likes of Kabir, Guru Nanak, and Ambedkar as part of India’s “thousands-of-years-old Constitution,” Gandhi seemingly left out highlighting the role played by the likes of Adi Shankaracharyas, Swami Vivekananda, and others in cultivating and fostering Hindu civilisational ethos that forms the bedrock of India’s collective consciousness.
In disregarding the sacrifices and contributions made by Hindu cultural heroes, Gandhi ignored those who gave their everything in forging a resilient consciousness that not only stood the test of time but also braved successive waves of attacks, first by the Middle East consciousness in the form of brutal invasions from Turushka, Mongol, and Afghan invaders, and then by the Christian consciousness in the form of British Raj in India; and yet, managed to keep its intrinsic nature not only intact but also flourishing, finding expression in innovative ways to retain its essence in collective consciousness.
What PM Modi said about India’s civilizational continuity on the Lex Fridman podcast
Compare this with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s articulation of India’s civilizational identity during his interview with Lex Fridman. There, Modi described India not as a mere geographical or political entity, but as a cultural and civilisational force.
“India is a cultural identity. It is a civilization that dates back thousands of years,” he said, highlighting the profound diversity of India — linguistic, regional, ritualistic — all bound by an invisible yet indelible thread.
Modi spoke of shared traditions and symbolism — the omnipresence of Lord Ram across all corners of India, the ritual invocation of the universe from Jambudweep to Bharatkhand in religious ceremonies, the continuity of family deities and ancestral customs — as examples of how India’s civilizational memory has remained alive and vibrant.
“From the south to the north, you will see immense diversity. But if you dig a little deeper, you will find a common thread,” Modi observed, pointing to the unity under the veneer of India’s biosterous diversity.
Seen in this context, Gandhi’s recent shift in tone appears to be a grudging acknowledgment of a view that Modi and others have championed for years: that India is far more than a modern post-colonial republic — it is a civilizational nation with roots that run deep into antiquity.
The cynic may call it opportunism; the optimist, evolution. Either way, Rahul Gandhi’s tune has changed — and it’s set to a more ancient rhythm. Whether he truly believes in the beat or is merely following the music remains to be seen. But in a political landscape where cultural confidence often trumps procedural semantics, acknowledging India’s civilisational soul might be the first step toward political relevance. It nevertheless begs an important question: What has prompted this sudden change of heart in the Gandhi scion to shun his ‘politically tutored’ ‘Union of States’ narrative for ‘India as a civilisational entity’?
Rahul Gandhi’s pivot: A genuine transformation or an instance of political opportunism
The short answer: reality. Congress has failed to galvanise the public with its previous messaging. The relentless invocation of “Union of States” may have appealed to a narrow set of intellectuals and Constitution purists, but it fell flat among an electorate that increasingly takes pride in belonging to a millennia-old, shared, and ancient civilisation—one that has been hailed by neutral historians of all hues as the fount of timeless wisdom, spiritual depth, and philosophical contemplations—and was unencumbered by narrow divisions of language, religion, caste, and region.
Moreover, the Congress’ inability to pin down the Modi government on substantial issues has pushed it back toward theatrics – the waving of the Constitution, the positioning of oneself as the guardians of the rights, the dramatics of democracy-in-danger narratives – all of which now seem hollow without a compelling vision of India’s past, present, and future.
Rahul Gandhi’s about-face, therefore, appears more tactical than transformative. It is a recognition that a nation cannot be mobilized merely on administrative semantics. People want a deeper identity – one rooted in tradition, culture, and collective consciousness. And that identity, ideologically inconvenient as it may have once been for the Congress ecosystem, is civilisational.
The conception of India as a ‘Union of States’ vis-a-vis its imagination as a civilisational entity strikes at the heart of the ongoing identity discourse. While the ‘Union of States’ narrative describes India as a ragtag mixture of several mini-civilisations belonging to different regions and espousing different languages and cultures, reducing the lived experiences of communities to a mere constitutional mandate, weaponising identity politics, which ultimately poses a grave threat to the geographical unity of the country as witnessed in the ongoing language wrangling in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the civilisational entity defines India as a nation firmly bonded together by a thread that binds differing traditions and cultures in one geographical contour with shared experiences while simultaneously keeping their individuality intact.
Whether this pivot is permanent or a politically transient maneuver remains to be seen. But if Rahul Gandhi has indeed begun to comprehend the essence of Bharat—not just as a constitutional arrangement but as a timeless cultural entity—then the Modi government would have yet again succeeded in shifting the Overton window, one that would likely mark the beginning of the opposition’s more mature engagement with Indian nationhood. Or, it could simply be another instance of political opportunism dressed up as ideological evolution aimed at scrubbing clean Congress’s historical dismissal of India’s civilisational consciousness.
Either way, the tune has changed – and in Indian politics, that’s always worth noticing.
