Shashi Tharoor’s Our Living Constitution is a reflective and provocative intervention in the ongoing discourse on India’s constitutional journey. Written with the characteristic eloquence that has made him a celebrated parliamentarian and public intellectual, Tharoor’s book situates the Indian Constitution as both a product of historical necessity and a guide for contemporary democracy. At once celebratory and critical, it highlights the endurance of constitutional ideals while cautioning against perceived threats.
The book, however, must be read with awareness of Tharoor’s political orientation. His insights are sharp, often illuminating, but they are also interwoven with partisan leanings. A critical review, therefore, requires a balanced engagement: respecting the scholarship while interrogating the ideological lens through which it is presented.
The author begins by calling the Constitution an “extraordinary document”, a claim few would contest. Drafted in the shadow of colonial exploitation and partition, the Constitution established universal adult franchise, fundamental rights, directive principles, and a federal structure with strong Union powers. He rightly underscores its durability: while many countries have abandoned or rewritten their constitutions, India has preserved its original text for seventy-five years, amending but never discarding it.
Yet, it must be noted that endurance alone does not explain success. The Constitution’s survival is due not merely to its design but to the vigilance of citizens, courts, and social movements that kept its spirit alive. Celebrating longevity without acknowledging these struggles risks romanticisation.
Thereafter, the book situates the framers’ vision in the pluralism articulated by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, who spoke of “strong invisible threads” binding India’s diversity. The author argues that the Constitution enshrined pluralism as its cornerstone, ensuring that identity, whether of faith, language, or region, would not fracture the Republic.
While persuasive, this account risks exaggerating pluralism as the sole basis of unity. Indian nationhood did not originate in 1950. It is rooted in a civilizational ethos that predates the Republic by millennia. The framers did not invent unity but codified an already living ethos. Forgetting this cultural foundation dilutes the strength of Indian nationhood.
The author further advances the idea of the Constitution as the anchor of “civic nationalism”, a unity based on shared constitutional values rather than ethnicity or religion. He also justifies borrowing elements from foreign constitutions as pragmatic, not derivative. This is a compelling interpretation, but it risks overlooking the deeper continuity of Indian nationhood. The Constitution did not create national identity; it gave legal expression to a cultural-spiritual unity that long predated colonialism and Independence. The author’s sympathetic portrayal of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) illustrates this tension. While dissent is indeed constitutionally protected, governance also entails the responsibility to protect sovereignty and security. Reducing CAA and NRC to partisan controversies glosses over their constitutional purpose, that is, addressing illegal migration and protecting persecuted minorities.
Subsequently, in discussing fundamental elements, that is, rights, separation of powers, and constitutional morality, the author underscores the liberal character of the Constitution. He argues that democracy depends not only on textual provisions but also on the spirit of fairness and justice.
This is a valuable point, yet constitutional morality in India cannot be understood in isolation from its cultural ethos. Concepts such as dharma, duty, and justice are embedded in Indian civilisational thought and give life to constitutional ideals. To view morality solely through a Western liberal lens leads to alienation from the broader society.
The author also emphasises adaptability as the Constitution’s strength, citing its 100+ amendments in seventy-five years as evidence of flexibility without fragility. He critiques the 42nd Amendment that inserted “Secular” and “Socialist” into the Preamble, noting that secularism was already implicit, while socialism unnecessarily constrained economic vision.
This critique is persuasive, yet Dr. Tharoor stops short of exploring a deeper question, that is, who decides the boundaries of constitutional amendment? He praises the Basic Structure doctrine as a safeguard, but leaves underexamined the democratic concern of vesting this power exclusively in the judiciary. The debate over constitutional supremacy versus parliamentary sovereignty remains unresolved.
The book further stresses that the Constitution is more than a legal document; it requires active democratic practice. Representation must be genuine, and civil society must hold authority accountable.
While correct, the analysis risks equating representation with populism. Leaders are not merely conduits of public mood; they are entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding long-term national interests. The Constitution vests them with the duty of displaying wisdom, not only gaining popularity.
Further, the most overtly political chapter in the book critiques the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which the author depicts as exclusionary. This portrayal, however, reads less like scholarship and more like polemics. The RSS has historically contributed to unity, discipline, and social service, often during crises. Its vision of national identity is rooted in India’s civilisational continuity rather than exclusivism. To dismiss it as anti-secular overlooks the indigenous understanding of secularism, that is, Sarva Dharma Sambhava. The Constitution thrives not on silencing competing visions but on dialogue among them. As such, a legitimate perspective in the constitutional discourse has been outrightly rejected by the author.
Thereafter, the author rightly highlights secularism as a defining feature of the Republic and warns against majoritarian tendencies. However, his approach risks conflating secularism with political opposition to particular parties or movements. True Indian secularism is not about banishing faith but ensuring equal dignity for all religions, not merely minorities or the majority, while affirming India’s cultural identity.
Towards the end, the author warns of centralisation and advocates stronger state autonomy. While important, this argument underplays the deliberate constitutional tilt towards Union primacy. India’s experiment with “competitive-cooperative federalism” illustrates that federal balance is dynamic: crises demand stronger centralisation, while stability allows greater decentralization. The Constitution’s genius lies in enabling both.
Our Living Constitution is, thus, a work of eloquence, provocation, and political reflection. The author celebrates the resilience of the constitutional order, critiques contemporary challenges, and presents his vision of India’s constitutional future. For readers, the task is to discern genuine insights from ideological framing. The book’s greatest strength lies in reminding us that the Constitution is not a static text but a living document, one that endures only through vigilance, reform, and fidelity to national interest.
As our former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee had once rightly mentioned:
“सरकारें आएंगी, जाएंगी, पार्टियां बनेंगी, बिगड़ेंगी मगर ये देश रहना चाहिए।”
That is, governments may change and ideologies may clash, but the nation should continue living on. This is possible only with the Constitution as the guiding star of this large and heterogeneous Republic.
All in all, an interesting read.
Add comment