January 2, 2026 07:10 AM IST First published on: Jan 2, 2026 at 07:10 AM ISTTwo days ago, a young woman studying nursing in Bareilly publicly asked one of last year’s most troubling questions: “Do I need to choose my friends based on their religion?” She said, “I feel deeply ashamed that my friends were harassed and assaulted.” The question, and her comment, arose after her birthday party in a Bareilly restaurant was violently crashed by a group of hooligans on December 27. These were men of an extremist disposition who considered it their right to “protect” Hindu women from Muslim men. Two of the woman’s classmates at the party were Muslim. According to her, they were assaulted, and others present were asked about their faith.The young woman’s question strikes at the core of an ideology that seeks to steer India away from its plural moorings; her sense of shame over what transpired should be felt by all right-thinking people. It should lead to introspection within the political class, especially in the ruling dispensation. Are these the social mores that will be found in Viksit Bharat? Some of the hooligans have been arrested, and a search is on for the group’s leaders. However, no senior leader of the ruling party has expressed regret over the incident. Strangely, a case has also been registered against the two Muslim men and the restaurant owner.AdvertisementIt is, therefore, reasonable to ask: Will the road to shedding the slavish Macaulay mentality and getting rid of the vestiges of a thousand years of “foreign” rule be littered with Bareilly-like incidents?The young woman’s question is significant because it goes to the very essence of the social, indeed national, values that the framers of the Constitution sought to instil in India’s people. They held that faith cannot be a determinant in the making of Indian society, nor can it be the main ingredient of this country’s national identity or nationalism.These values were not dependent on those of other countries. They were also not to be conditioned on the policies and practices of others. They formed the core of Indian constitutionalism because they were held to be good in themselves. They were also in line with India’s civilisation from the earliest times. The Constitution-makers believed that matters of faith should be kept out of the public domain. They could not have imagined that individuals or groups would be allowed, if not encouraged, to intrude on the interpersonal interaction of other Indians.AdvertisementRecently, in the course of a talk, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that before someone approaches a court alleging that their fundamental rights have been violated, they should establish that they have upheld constitutional duties. Only then should a court consider the case. Mehta asserted that this would lead to social harmony. His view is novel but his reminder that a citizen has constitutional duties is timely.most readThe chapter on fundamental duties was put in the Constitution (Article 51A) during the Emergency but it has never been taken out. Indeed, it was amended in 2002 only to enlarge its scope. Article 51 A(e) requires citizens “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”. The Bareilly incident and the use of violence against the weak and vulnerable should impel the state to remind all Indians of their constitutional duties. It also follows that those who precipitate such incidents and lynchings should face the full might of the law. Perhaps this would be a good response to the young woman’s question.At a time when the nation is confronting grave strategic challenges, it is necessary to maintain social solidarity. Social cohesion is a strategic asset. Without national unity rooted in social justice, Viksit Bharat will remain a dream. The hooligans in Bareilly, therefore, also endanger India’s security and progress. They cannot just be dismissed as extreme elements, for increasingly, the fringe is becoming mainstream.The writer is a former diplomat