INDIA, no doubt, has reached such a moment. The politics of the country looks polarized, but it has acquired the fluidity of a kaleidoscope. The economy is a contrast of the highest degree: outside the most modem laboratory of indigenous supercomputers, in the field lazily graze bone-thin milchcows. The society is fragmented. The external environment has rearranged itself beyond recognition; we now live in a uni-multipolar world. This is a right moment for introspection; to bring to the crucible of reason all our premises, values, beliefs, faiths; to dare challenge our innermost feelings; to dismantle all our preconceived notions, so that we can rebuild with greater vigour. So we shall try.

We, the people of India, resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic, and to secure to all its citizens justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. That was half a century ago. On January 26, 1950, we gave to ourselves the Constitution of India, which records this resolution in its preamble. India is the largest democracy in the world by the size of electorate, the frequency of elections, as well as the unmistakable enthusiasm of voters. And India is a sovereign republic. All this is no mean achievement. Thus, the first part of the resolution seems to have been well served. What about the other part that radiates justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity? This is the central question of our essay. India is a land of immense diversity. The decennial census returns 80 percent of the population as Hindu, 12 percent as Muslim, and eight percent as others.

India is the home of the second largest Muslim population in the world, behind only Indonesia, but ahead of Pakistan. The extent of diversity is brought out even more vividly by the findings of the Anthropological Survey of India there are today some three thousand distinct communities in India, and many languages and dialects/ To secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity to all its citizens in this land is no mean task; it can put to test every conceivable theory and every possible practice.To accomplish the mission enjoined by the preamble of the Constitution of India it requires at least two things: an appropriate theory for policy, and an adequate material base. Horizons on both fronts appear bleak. As for theory, two versions have emerged at the political level; they are called respectively, liberal, and conservative. Evidently, the Congress party has forged the liberal consensus over decades, and practised it while ruling the country for half a century since 1947.

By contrast, the conservative consensus had appeared on the national scene rather dramatically with the formation of a coalition government in New Delhi. As for the material base, the picture looks not very encouraging. India has 16 percent of the world population, but only one percent of the world income, and three percent of the total area. Among 174 countries India falls at the bottom quarter in terms of the human development index constructed annually by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).The global environment is turbulent. At the end of the cold war the world has only one superpower. But it is not unipolar, nor is it multipolar. The world instead is a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.

India belongs to a second tier as a major regional power in South Asia, comparable to China in East Asia, Iran in Southeast Asia, and Brazil in Latin America. Settlement of key international issues requires actions by the single superpower but always with some combination of other major powers; the single superpower can, however, veto action on vital issues by combinations of other states. Globalization is a dominant tendency in the world economy, spurred by a long wave of innovations that began in the United States in the early 1990s and is likely to continue for two more decades India has to find a place in this dynamic setting. Our objective is to suggest measures that can help us attain the goals set out in the Constitution. Normally, political parties have in their manifestoes called for a comprehensive review of the Constitution. As we see it, religion and caste are the two main axes of discord in the country. India sits at the rim of an Islamic resurgence worldwide. Meanwhile there has been a powerful revival of Hindu nationalism in the country.

The fact of the matter is here a young vibrant faith is evolving itself while side by side an ancient religion is reasserting its articles of morality. Despite the entire apparent differences one finds a strange similarity in the two processes. What passes as Islamic fundamentalism, we shall observe, looks very much like Sanskritization of Hindus. Many other countries in the world are facing similar religion-related conflicts. India, a country with the most tolerant civilization in history, can set an example. In this age of reason and radioactive materials, disputes on religion and caste are better handled in seminars and august symposia rather than on the street or in hills. We visualize the nation in terms of three sectors: civil society, economy, and polity. Religion belongs to the first, not to the third; but there is no unanimity in this assignment. Under the circumstances the classical principle of division of labour can offer a solution: let there be an Indian Parliament of Religions, conceivably modeled after the celebrated World Parliament of Religions, Chicago. 1893, where Swami Vivekananda enunciated the essence of Hinduism. It is important to recognize that we have a two-dimensional problem inter-religion, and intra-religion.