Republic Day parade - Surprising and Lesser-known facts which hardy anyone knows

 

---

Republic Day parade - Surprising and Lesser-known facts || Traditions, Chief Guests, and how the event has evolved over time

1. The parade wasn’t always on Kartavya Path (Rajpath)

• Early Republic Day parades (1950–1954) were held at Irwin Stadium (now National Stadium), Kingsway (Rajpath), Red Fort, and even Ramlila Maidan.
• The now-iconic route from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate became standard only in 1955.
• The choice symbolically linked the President (Head of State) with the people, moving away from colonial ceremonial geography.

Source: Ministry of Defence publications; contemporary newspaper archives (The Hindu, Times of India)

---

2. The first Republic Day parade was relatively modest

• On 26 January 1950, there was no massive military spectacle as seen today.
• Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s swearing-in as President was the central event.
• Cultural pageantry, flypasts, and elaborate tableaux were expanded gradually, especially after the 1960s.

This evolution reflects India’s growing confidence—not just militarily, but culturally.

---

3. The Chief Guest tradition began with strategic intent

• India has invited a foreign Head of State or Government almost every year since 1950 (with a few exceptions).
• The choice is deeply diplomatic, often signaling: A strategic partnership (e.g., France repeatedly) A regional focus (ASEAN leaders in 2018) Or a political reset (e.g., Pakistan’s President Iskander Mirza in 1955, during a brief phase of warmth)

Notable exceptions:

• 1966 and 1972 had no chief guest due to political instability and post-war tensions.
• 2021 had no foreign chief guest due to COVID-19.

Source: MEA records; “India’s Foreign Policy” by J.N. Dixit

---

4. Indonesia’s President as first Chief Guest wasn’t accidental

• President Sukarno (Indonesia) was the first Republic Day chief guest in 1950.
• This symbolized: Anti-colonial solidarity Asian unity India’s early leadership role among newly independent nations

This choice later fed into the Non-Aligned Movement, formally founded in 1961.

---

5. Beating Retreat wasn’t originally Indian at all

• The Beating Retreat ceremony (held on 29 January) comes from a 17th-century European military practice, signaling troops to return to barracks at sunset.
• India adapted it with Indian instruments (shehnai, tabla, santoor) and Indian compositions.
• In recent years, colonial-era tunes have been consciously phased out, replaced by Indian patriotic music.

This reflects a slow but deliberate decolonisation of ceremonial culture, rather than a sudden break.

---

6. Tableaux selection is intensely competitive (and political)

• States and ministries must submit detailed proposals months in advance.
• Themes are evaluated on: National relevance Cultural representation Visual storytelling
• Some states have publicly protested exclusion, arguing regional imbalance or bias.

This tension shows how the parade is not just cultural—but also federal and political in nature.

---

7. The parade once ended with a motorcycle pyramid that amazed foreign guests

• The “Daredevils” motorcycle display by the Army and police—human pyramids on moving bikes—became one of the most photographed segments internationally.
• It was especially highlighted in Cold War–era foreign media as a symbol of Indian discipline and spectacle.
• In recent years, the act has been scaled back due to safety and evolving presentation priorities.

---

8. Women’s participation expanded quietly, not suddenly

• Women were present in bands and medical corps early on, but combat and command representation increased gradually.
• Milestones include: All-women contingents in recent years Women fighter pilots leading flypasts
• These changes were the result of policy shifts over decades, not a single reform.

---

9. The flypast is one of the most complex in the world

• The Air Force flypast involves dozens of aircraft, precise timing, and coordination over a dense urban area.
• Weather, visibility, and pollution levels can cancel or alter it at the last moment—something rarely visible to viewers.
• According to former IAF officials, it’s considered among the most demanding ceremonial flypasts globally.

---

10. Republic Day is more about the Constitution than independence

This sounds obvious, but it’s often forgotten:

• 26 January marks the enforcement of the Constitution (1950), not freedom from British rule.
• The parade’s core symbolism is: Civil authority over the military Constitutional sovereignty Unity in diversity

The President—not the Prime Minister—takes the salute for this reason.

---

A quiet takeaway

Over time, the Republic Day parade has shifted from:

• Assertion → Representation → Reflection

From proving India’s survival, to showcasing its diversity, to rethinking how it tells its own story.

See the video or listen podcast-

271 views

View 9 shares

Is Dr. Ambedkar truly the sole architect of the Constitution?

 

---

Is Dr. Ambedkar truly the sole architect of the Constitution? || The draft of the Constitution had already been prepared even before the formation of the Drafting Committee, which Dr. Ambedkar chaired.

---

Many scholars contributed to the making of the Constitution, but apart from Ambedkar, hardly anyone else is known to the public.

---

Public memory of the Indian Constitution often centers on a few towering figures—most notably Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. While their roles were undeniably central, constitution-making was a collective, deliberative effort involving nearly 300 members of the Constituent Assembly over almost three years (1946–1949). Many contributors who played substantive roles in drafting, debating, and refining the text remain relatively overlooked. Below are some such figures, their concrete contributions, and the structural reasons they faded from popular narratives.

---

1. B. N. Rau – The Constitutional Architect Behind the Scenes

Role and contribution

• Served as the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly (1946–1948).
• Prepared the initial draft framework of the Constitution before the Drafting Committee was even formed.
• Conducted extensive comparative constitutional research, studying the constitutions of the UK, US, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and others.
• Corresponded with international jurists, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, on issues such as judicial review and fundamental rights.

Why overlooked
Rau was a civil servant, not a politician. He neither spoke often in the Assembly nor sought public recognition. Once the Drafting Committee (chaired by Ambedkar) took over, Rau’s foundational intellectual labor was absorbed into the collective process, making his role less visible to the public.

---

2. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar – Constitutional Logic and Federalism

Role and contribution

• A leading jurist and member of the Drafting Committee.
• Played a key role in shaping provisions on federal structure, center–state relations, and the judiciary.
• Often provided the legal rationale defending a strong Centre during Assembly debates, grounding arguments in constitutional theory rather than political rhetoric.

Why overlooked
Ambedkar, as chairman and principal spokesperson of the Drafting Committee, naturally became its public face. Ayyar’s interventions were technical, legalistic, and less quotable—important for durability, but less memorable in popular retellings.

---

3. K. M. Munshi – Cultural and Civilisational Continuity

Role and contribution

• Influential in debates on Fundamental Rights, particularly freedom of religion and cultural rights.
• Instrumental in drafting Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code) as a Directive Principle.
• Advocated for preserving India’s civilisational ethos while framing a modern constitutional order.

Why overlooked
Munshi’s legacy is often fragmented—remembered variously as a writer, freedom fighter, or educationist—rather than as a constitutional thinker. Additionally, later political controversies around issues like the Uniform Civil Code have overshadowed his nuanced constitutional arguments.

---

4. Dakshayani Velayudhan – Social Justice Beyond Elite Leadership

Role and contribution

• The only Dalit woman in the Constituent Assembly.
• Consistently emphasized that political freedom without social and economic equality would be hollow.
• Spoke against untouchability, caste oppression, and the everyday indignities faced by marginalized communities, often grounding debates in lived experience rather than legal abstraction.

Why overlooked
She did not hold formal power within committees, nor did she belong to dominant political networks. Historical narratives have tended to privilege elite leadership and institutional authority over voices rooted in social critique and moral persuasion.

---

5. Hansa Mehta – Gender Equality in Constitutional Language

Role and contribution

• Championed gender-neutral rights, insisting that the Constitution speak of “citizens” rather than “men.”
• Played a role in shaping Articles 14–16 (equality before law, non-discrimination, equal opportunity).
• Later represented India at the United Nations and influenced the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Why overlooked
Her contributions are often subsumed under broader “women’s participation” narratives rather than recognized as specific constitutional interventions. Additionally, constitutional history has long underplayed gender as a central analytical lens.

---

6. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar – Pragmatism and National Integration

Role and contribution

• Key figure in drafting provisions related to administration of sensitive border regions, including Article 370 (as originally framed).
• Brought administrative realism from his experience as a statesman and former prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

Why overlooked
Later political debates around Article 370 have polarized public discussion, reducing his role to a footnote rather than engaging with the original constitutional reasoning and context in which those provisions were crafted.

---

Why These Contributors Are Often Overlooked (Structural Reasons)

1. Hero-centric history: Popular narratives favor singular leaders over collective processes.
2. Technical invisibility: Legal drafting, committee work, and procedural refinement attract less attention than speeches and symbolism.
3. Archival distance: Constituent Assembly Debates are extensive and dense, limiting public engagement.
4. Post-Independence politics: Later political agendas shape which constitutional figures are remembered or marginalized.
5. Social hierarchies: Caste, gender, and class biases have influenced whose contributions are celebrated.

---

Concluding reflection

The Indian Constitution is not merely the product of a few iconic minds, but of sustained dialogue among jurists, administrators, social reformers, women leaders, and representatives of marginalized communities. Recovering these lesser-known contributors does not diminish Ambedkar or other central figures; rather, it deepens our understanding of the Constitution as a collective democratic achievement, shaped by diversity, disagreement, and compromise.

583 views

12 shares

105 views

Supreme Court’s Blow on UGC Regulation 2026

 

---

Supreme Court’s Blow to the Politics of Division — Stay on UGC Regulation 2026

---

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the University Grants Commission’s Equity Regulation 2026 should not be viewed merely as a legal or administrative intervention. To do so would grossly underestimate its significance. The ruling comes at a time when, in the name of reform in higher education, an attempt was becoming increasingly evident to institutionalize social division.

Issuing notice to the Union government, the Court observed that the new regulations are prima facie vague, susceptible to misuse, and neither administratively workable nor socially prudent for immediate implementation. This observation raises serious questions about the policy-making process itself—its intent, its design, and its potential consequences.

It is heartening that after a long time, the Supreme Court has delivered a decision that restores confidence in constitutional institutions as vigilant guardians of social balance and national unity. The bench headed by Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined the matter with commendable clarity and sensitivity. Had judicial intervention not occurred at this stage, these regulations could have transformed higher educational institutions into centers of caste-based tension and mistrust. History bears witness to the fact that the cost of social experimentation within educational institutions is first paid by the youth.

“Are We Moving Backward?”

The bench’s question to the government—

A Narrow Understanding of Discrimination

The Supreme Court made an important observation: discrimination cannot be confined solely to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes. Discrimination can be regional, economic, or manifest through institutional ragging. In a country as socially diverse as India, viewing discrimination exclusively through the lens of caste is neither practical nor just.

The Court also underlined that a caste considered backward in one state may fall under the general category in another. In such circumstances, implementing caste-based regulations uniformly across India risks generating confusion and conflict. The Court’s sharp remark on proposals such as separate hostels for different castes—“For God’s sake, don’t do this!”—is not merely judicial wisdom; it is a powerful reaffirmation of India’s shared social consciousness. Educational institutions must reflect national unity, not fracture it.

2012 Rules vs. the 2026 Experiment

The Court’s question—why new rules were required when the 2012 regulations already existed and were functioning—strikes at the heart of the issue. It naturally casts doubt on the government’s intent.

The 2012 regulations required complainants to disclose their identity, ensured that inquiry committees consisted of internal academic members, provided a clear definition of discrimination, followed a quasi-judicial process, and emphasized corrective rather than punitive action. Consequently, the scope for misuse was limited.

In contrast, the 2026 regulations allow anonymous complaints, enable external interference including police involvement, rely on vague and caste-centric definitions, and adopt a largely administrative and punitive framework. Such a system could easily weaponize personal animosity, jealousy, or ideological disagreement to destroy the academic future of a student or faculty member.

The Concept of “Birth-Based Criminality”

The structure of the new regulations gives the impression that being born into so-called “upper castes” itself constitutes an offense. Today, the general category largely consists of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas—many of whom are economically distressed. These groups receive neither reservation benefits nor meaningful government support, nor do they enjoy political patronage.

Yet, even when meritorious students from these backgrounds reach higher educational institutions, they often face caste-based prejudice. If policies framed in the name of equality begin treating them as pre-declared offenders, nothing could be more ironic or unjust.

One consequence of this environment is the growing trend of families who can afford it sending their children abroad—many of whom never return. Those who cannot afford it still attempt the same by taking loans or selling assets. This phenomenon represents not merely brain drain, but a deep erosion of social trust.

BJP, Social Unity, and the Mandal Lesson

The BJP has long positioned itself as a champion of social unity and nationalism. Introducing regulations that risk caste-based fragmentation in education naturally raises uncomfortable questions. History shows that caste-based politics may yield short-term electoral gains, but it inflicts long-term political and social damage.

In its desire to remain in power, the BJP government appears to be forgetting its declared social responsibility. By entangling itself in the politics of “upper versus backward,” it risks repeating the mistake of V. P. Singh. His ambition to become the messiah of the Mandal movement did not secure his political future—it erased him from relevance. The BJP would do well to avoid a similar “reversion to insignificance.”

Wokism and a Foreign Agenda

The UGC’s new regulations evoke memories of the British-era Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, under which entire communities were branded as hereditary criminals. Tragically, even after independence, the Nehru government retained this law for years. Today, the same mindset appears to be resurfacing—cloaked in new terminology, new slogans, and the rhetoric of “equity.”

In 2023, California enacted a caste-discrimination law in a society where caste has no indigenous existence. The law primarily targets Indian-origin employees, particularly Hindus. It mandates that companies include caste in their anti-discrimination policies and establish grievance mechanisms. Proven violations attract heavy fines, compensation for complainants, and punitive action against companies.

A similar law was later adopted in Seattle. These developments were driven by anti-India and anti-Hindu lobbies. Under these laws, even false or trivial complaints led to severe action: companies were fined heavily, alleged “upper-caste” employees were dismissed, and some were deported to India. The unintended outcome was that companies began avoiding hiring Indian employees from these backgrounds altogether.

It is not unreasonable to fear that the same ideological agenda is being imported into India—facilitated by a government increasingly dependent on wokism-influenced bureaucrats and advisors.

A Neglected Education Ministry

The Ministry of Education under the BJP appears neglected and directionless. From curricula to textbooks, much remains unchanged from the Congress era, shaped heavily by left-leaning ideology. Ironically, one of the academics who played a key role in drafting the new UGC regulations was awarded the Padma Shri this very year.

It is widely believed that opposition parties, deeply invested in caste-based and appeasement politics, would naturally support such regulations. What is surprising is the BJP’s silence. The education minister’s assurance to protesters—that they would not be wronged—suggests an assumption of permanent authority. Such arrogance is dangerous in a democracy.

A Timely Warning

The Supreme Court’s stay is not merely an injunction; it is a timely warning. Reforms are necessary—but they must unite society, not divide it.

There is still time for the government to introspect, to broaden social consultation in policy-making, and to prevent education from becoming an ideological laboratory. If pursued with equality, justice, and dialogue, reform can strengthen not only the education system but also preserve the internal unity of Indian society—its greatest strength.

Mistakes can be corrected if acknowledged. History is unforgiving to societies on the path of awakening. A single statement at Jinnah’s mausoleum erased decades of ideological capital accumulated by a leader like L. K. Advani. Prime Minister Modi—despite his significant role in Hindu resurgence—would do well to remember this lesson.

“When we were moving toward a casteless society, are we now attempting to move backward?” It is not merely a constitutional query. It is a direct challenge to the trajectory along which social policy is being steered. The government offered no clear response. That silence speaks volumes.

— Shiv Mishra

198 views

View 13 shares

How Rahul Gandhi Unwittingly Became Modi’s ‘Crisis Manager’,

 

---

From Opposition Leader to Political Lifeline: How Rahul Gandhi Unwittingly Became Modi’s ‘Crisis Manager’

---

It was a cold morning in Delhi.

Outside Parliament, small clusters of students stood holding placards. Some were shouting slogans. Others were livestreaming protests on their phones. “Withdraw the UGC rules,” their voices echoed through the barricades.

They had travelled from different corners of the country with one shared anxiety — their future felt uncertain.

Inside Parliament, meanwhile, the government and the opposition were preparing for battle. Speeches were ready. Strategy notes were stacked. Television crews waited for fireworks.

The government was under pressure.
The opposition smelled opportunity.

The moment belonged to Rahul Gandhi.

By evening, the story had flipped.

The government looked relieved.
The opposition was defensive.
And the issue dominating the news cycle was… something else entirely.

Somewhere between a speech, a procedural objection, and a political miscalculation, Rahul Gandhi had done what his critics often accuse him of doing — unintentionally rescued the very government he meant to attack.

In trying to corner Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he ended up becoming his unlikely shield.

---

The unrest that worried the government

To understand how this happened, one must go back a few weeks.

Across India’s universities, anger had been brewing over new UGC regulations. Campuses were restless. Posters covered hostel walls. Faculty associations issued statements. Student groups organized marches.

But this was not a routine protest.

This time, the anger was unusually broad-based.

Upper-caste students. Dalits. OBCs. Tribal students.
Left-leaning groups. Centrists. Even apolitical youth.

Everyone seemed upset.

In politics, this kind of cross-sectional unrest is dangerous. When anger cuts across social and ideological lines, governments struggle to contain it.

The BJP knew this.

---

A crack in the BJP’s strongest support base

For nearly a decade, the BJP’s biggest strength has not just been its organization or messaging — it has been young voters.

Young Indians powered Modi’s digital dominance. They built narratives on social media. They defended policies. They created trends.

They were, in many ways, the BJP’s volunteer army.

But this time, something felt different.

The same social media spaces that once echoed with praise began filling with criticism.
Prime Minister Modi’s live broadcasts saw declining viewership.
Comments grew sharper, less reverential.

This wasn’t just online noise. It was a warning sign.

If young voters drift away, political equations shift quickly.

The government sensed trouble.

---

The perfect opportunity for the opposition

Then came the Budget Session of Parliament.

For the opposition, this was a golden opportunity.

They had everything lined up:

• Student unrest
• Education policy concerns
• Rising unemployment
• Youth frustration

Rahul Gandhi, as Leader of the Opposition, had the stage.

Political observers expected a sustained attack — sharp, focused, relentless.

If he had stayed on these issues, the government would have been forced into a defensive posture.

But politics often turns not on what you say — but what you choose not to say.

---

The speech that changed the script

When Rahul Gandhi rose to speak during the debate on the Motion of Thanks, cameras zoomed in.

The treasury benches braced for an attack on the UGC issue.

Instead, something unexpected happened.

The UGC protests? Barely mentioned.
Students? Hardly central.
The Budget? Brief.

Instead, Rahul pivoted to national security.

He referred to an unpublished book by former Army Chief General Mukund Naravane, raised questions about China, border tensions, and defence preparedness.

It was a sensitive topic — but not the one dominating public anger.

The Speaker disallowed references to an unpublished book, citing parliamentary rules.

And then came the chaos.

The Congress protested.
The House stalled.
Television channels shifted focus.

Within minutes, the debate had moved away from students and education to procedure, privilege, and parliamentary confrontation.

The agenda had changed.

And that was the moment the government quietly exhaled.

---

The first rule of politics: never lose the agenda

Politics runs on perception.

And perception runs on the issue that dominates conversation.

Whoever sets the agenda wins half the battle.

Until that morning, the government was cornered on education policy.

By afternoon, the focus had shifted to a procedural controversy about an unpublished book.

The BJP didn’t have to rescue itself.

The opposition had already done it.

Strategically, this is what political consultants call a “self-goal.”

---

The ‘book war’ that followed

Sensing an opening, the BJP counterattacked.

MP Nishikant Dubey entered the fray carrying a stack of books.

What followed was a dramatic “book war.”

Passages were cited from works about the Nehru-Gandhi family:

• Catherine Clément’s Edwina and Nehru
• Pamela Mountbatten’s memoir India Remembered
• M.O. Mathai’s controversial Reminiscences of the Nehru Era
• Brigadier John Dalvi’s Himalayan Blunder
• The Mitrokhin Archive

Instead of discussing education reforms, prime-time debates were now dissecting history, personal relationships, Cold War allegations, and decades-old controversies.

Students disappeared from the screen.

History took over.

Congress found itself defending the past instead of attacking the present.

The BJP went from defensive to aggressive in a matter of days.

---

The psychology of political distraction

Here’s a simple truth about modern politics:

Problems don’t need to be solved — they just need to disappear from headlines.

The UGC issue didn’t vanish.
The anger didn’t vanish.

But the discussion vanished.

And when the discussion disappears, pressure disappears.

For any government, that is victory.

---

A recurring pattern

This wasn’t the first time.

Rahul Gandhi has often been accused of drifting away from core issues at crucial moments.

When inflation dominates public discourse, he raises ideological debates.
When unemployment is central, he pivots to abstract themes.
When the government is cornered, he changes the subject.

In political communication, this is called losing “message discipline.”

And losing message discipline means losing momentum.

---

So who benefited?

The math is simple:

• Government under pressure → pressure reduced
• Opposition with strong issue → issue diluted
• Student movement → sidelined
• BJP → regained narrative control

The political beneficiary? Clearly the BJP.

---

Intent vs outcome

Was this deliberate? Probably not.

But politics doesn’t judge intention. It judges outcome.

And the outcome was unmistakable.

At a moment when the government was vulnerable, the opposition handed it breathing space.

In trying to attack Modi, Rahul Gandhi inadvertently protected him.

---

The irony

For years, BJP leaders have mocked Rahul Gandhi as their “star campaigner.”

After this episode, the phrase feels less like sarcasm and more like political analysis.

Because this time, he didn’t just campaign for them.

He bailed them out.

In the middle of a crisis, he became their shield.

And in the strange theatre of Indian politics, that may be the greatest irony of all.

Sometimes, the loudest attack turns out to be the strongest defence.

976 views

View 2 upvotes

View 14 shares