This article has been authored by a member of The Quint. Our membership programme allows those who are not full-time journalists or our regular contributors to get published on The Quint under our exclusive 'Member's Opinion' section, along with many other benefits. Our membership is open and available to any reader of The Quint. Become a member today and send us your articles at TQmembersonly@thequint.com.
At what point does asking questions begin to be seen as an act of disloyalty? Why should citizens have to prove their love for their country simply because they disagree with those in power?
Recent protests in Delhi over electoral-roll revisions and demands for accountability from the Election Commission have brought these questions into focus. On 3 October, Reuters reported police detentions during demonstrations in which protesters challenged the revision process and demanded the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation. The Election Commission’s position and the protesters’ allegations deserve examination on their respective merits. Allegations require evidence, just as demands for accountability deserve a fair hearing.
Beyond this immediate controversy lies a larger question: what place should peaceful dissent occupy in a democracy?
A History Shaped by Questioning Authority
India’s freedom struggle was shaped by people who challenged established authority, resisted unjust laws and imagined a future different from their present.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March turned an everyday necessity into an act of resistance against colonial rule. Bhagat Singh challenged British authority through revolutionary action, while Aruna Asaf Ali emerged as a prominent figure during the Quit India Movement.
Their struggles cannot be equated directly with contemporary protests against a democratically elected government. History demands nuance. Yet their legacy reminds us that questioning authority has long been part of India’s political journey.
It is worth asking why we celebrate those who challenged colonial power while sometimes viewing peaceful disagreement in independent India with suspicion.
What the Constitution Protects
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Both are subject to constitutionally permitted restrictions.
These provisions reflect a fundamental democratic principle: citizens are participants in public life, not simply recipients of decisions made on their behalf.
Elections allow people to choose their representatives, but democratic participation does not end when voting concludes. It continues through public debate, questions about policy and demands for accountability.
A citizen criticising a government policy is not necessarily rejecting the nation. A student questioning an institution is not automatically undermining it. Disagreement with authority and hostility towards one’s country are not the same thing.
A democracy is stronger when citizens can disagree without having their belonging questioned.
The Cost of Speaking Up
The right to dissent matters most when exercising it becomes difficult.
Public disagreement can expose people to online harassment, personal attacks and intimidation. In its Freedom in the World 2025 report, Freedom House documented restrictions on public assembly in India, including measures taken during the February 2024 farmers’ march. Such measures, even when defended on public-order grounds, warrant scrutiny regarding their impact on peaceful participation.
When people fear humiliation, professional repercussions or legal consequences for expressing their views, they may hesitate before entering public debate.
The concern is not disagreement itself. It is whether citizens can express their concerns peacefully without facing consequences disproportionate to their conduct.
No individual or movement should be beyond criticism. But challenging an argument and intimidating the person making it are fundamentally different acts.
Courage does not always mean addressing a crowd or holding a placard. Sometimes, it means asking an uncomfortable question, examining evidence instead of following a popular narrative, or defending another person’s right to speak even when we disagree with them.
Democracy Is an Everyday Responsibility
Democracy is sustained not only by prominent activists and public figures, but also by ordinary citizens whose contributions may never make the news.
It is the student attending a peaceful demonstration for the first time, the journalist striving to report events accurately, the lawyer assisting someone who cannot afford legal representation, and the citizen who examines the facts before forming an opinion. It is also the stranger who offers water to a tired demonstrator without first asking which political party they support.
These everyday acts remind us that democracy is not confined to Parliament, courtrooms or government offices. It also depends on how we treat one another.
This does not mean romanticising every protest or accepting every allegation as fact. Protesters must respect the law and the rights of others. Governments have a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order. Claims made by protesters and responses from public institutions must both remain open to scrutiny.
A society that celebrates courage only when it agrees with the cause is celebrating agreement, not courage.
Rethinking Patriotism
Who gets to define patriotism? Must it mean agreeing with the government, or can it also mean wanting public institutions to function fairly and constitutional promises to be fulfilled?
Criticism can be misinformed, unfair or politically motivated. The answer should be evidence, reasoned argument and credible institutional processes—not assumptions about a person’s loyalty. Where allegations of wrongdoing arise, they deserve impartial examination.
Patriotism need not mean believing that the country or its institutions are incapable of error. It can mean caring enough to question, being responsible enough to verify and remaining humble enough to reconsider one’s own position.
We, the People of India
Amid debates about nationalism, loyalty and public accountability, we would do well to return to the opening words of our Constitution’s Preamble:
“We, the People of India.”
These words remind us that the Constitution derives its authority from the people. Its promise does not belong to one ideology, political party or collective opinion. It belongs equally to those who agree, those who disagree and those who ask difficult questions.
The India we leave behind will depend, in part, on whether future generations can participate in public life without having to prove their loyalty merely for exercising their constitutional freedoms.
Dissent is not automatically right, just as authority is not automatically wrong. Both must remain open to scrutiny.
The right to question one’s country is not a rejection of it. Peaceful dissent can be an expression of responsibility towards it. And in a democracy that begins with “We, the People of India,” no citizen should have to surrender their voice to prove they belong.
(Prabh Simran Kour is a trained educator and independent writer based in Jammu and Kashmir. She writes on education, youth, mental health, and public policy. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. They are are based on publicly available information and analysis. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)