OPINION | India’s Republic Day Is a Strategic Statement, Not a Celebration

by Ashu Mann

India’s Republic Day is not merely a ceremony. That misreading is convenient for critics abroad and in the region, and even more so for Pakistan’s annual attempt to reframe January 26 as a “Black Day.” In reality, Republic Day is a strategic statement about how the Indian state chooses to organize power and why that choice increasingly matters in South Asia.

At a time when constitutional order is eroding across parts of the region, India’s republic endures because it was deliberately designed to restrain power rather than mobilize grievance.

A Republic Chosen, Not Inherited

India did not become a republic by default. It became one by design.

When independence arrived in 1947, India could have followed the path taken by many post-colonial states: revolutionary centralization, indefinite emergency rule, or charismatic dominance. Instead, it spent over two years drafting a Constitution that transferred sovereignty from the empire to citizens, not symbolically, but legally.

The choice of January 26, 1950 was not nostalgic. It linked constitutional authority to the earlier Purna Swaraj declaration, signaling that independence was incomplete without enforceable rights, institutional checks, and civilian supremacy. Republic Day marks the moment when power was bound by law, not unleashed by victory. That distinction remains central to India’s political legitimacy.

Constitutional Continuity as a Strategic Asset

What sets India apart in South Asia is not electoral frequency alone, but constitutional continuity. Since 1950, India has endured wars, insurgencies, coalition churn, emergency rule, and economic upheaval, yet the Constitution has remained operative. Amendments have occurred. Governments have fallen. Institutions have been tested. But the constitutional order itself has not collapsed.

This continuity is not merely a domestic virtue. It is a strategic asset. States that preserve institutional legitimacy are better positioned to manage dissent, negotiate conflict, and absorb pressure without systemic rupture. In contrast, states that repeatedly suspend or rewrite constitutional order tend to substitute grievance narratives for governance.

The divergence between India and Pakistan illustrates this starkly.

The “Black Day” Narrative and Its Contradictions

Each year, Pakistan seeks to cast India’s Republic Day as a “Black Day” in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. The framing is revealing. It attempts to delegitimize a constitutional milestone by collapsing it into a territorial grievance.

Yet Pakistan’s own constitutional history undermines the credibility of this posture. Since its founding, Pakistan has experienced repeated constitutional abrogations, prolonged military rule, and elite capture of civilian institutions. Power has routinely flowed from barracks to state, not from citizens to law.

This is not a moral argument. It is an institutional one.

India’s Republic Day commemorates a constitution that has governed continuously for over seven decades. Pakistan’s critique comes from a system where constitutions have been suspended, rewritten, or subordinated to unelected authority. The contrast is structural, not rhetorical.

Kashmir and the Logic of Constitutionalism

International commentary often treats Kashmir as an exception to India’s constitutional narrative. That framing misunderstands the logic of the Indian republic.

India’s claim over Jammu and Kashmir has never rested solely on territory or force. It has rested on constitutional integration, judicial review, electoral participation, and the extension of rights. These mechanisms are imperfect and contested, but they are institutional, not arbitrary.

By contrast, Pakistan’s Kashmir posture has relied heavily on grievance mobilization and internationalization rather than constitutional stewardship. The difference matters. Disputes managed through institutions evolve. Disputes managed through grievance harden.

Republic Day highlights this distinction. It affirms that India’s political disputes, however intense, are meant to be negotiated within a constitutional framework, not through perpetual mobilization or externalization.

Restraint as Statecraft

Republic Day is often misinterpreted as a display of power. In reality, it is a reminder of restraint.

A republic is not defined by how loudly it asserts itself, but by how consistently it limits itself. India’s constitutional system constrains executive authority, subjects security policy to civilian oversight, and provides legal channels for dissent. These constraints are not weaknesses. They are stabilizers.

In a region where power has frequently been personalized or militarized, India’s decision to bind authority to law has reduced the likelihood of systemic collapse, even during moments of crisis.

Why Republic Day Matters Now

The relevance of Republic Day has grown as constitutional norms weaken globally. From military interventions to populist erosion of institutions, the world has seen how quickly states unravel when law yields to grievance.

India’s republic has not been immune to stress. But it has proven resilient precisely because its legitimacy does not hinge on a single leader, ideology, or moment of mobilization. It rests on institutions that renew authority through procedure, not spectacle.

This is why Republic Day unsettles critics who rely on permanent grievance narratives. It is harder to challenge a state whose legitimacy is procedural rather than performative.

Beyond the Parade

The parade will continue. The flypast will draw cameras. Those images will circulate. But the true meaning of January 26 lies elsewhere: in the decision, reaffirmed annually, to treat constitutional order as the foundation of sovereignty. In South Asia, that choice remains exceptional. In a volatile region, it is also strategic.

Republic Day is not India celebrating itself. It is India reminding itself, and its neighbors, how power is meant to be exercised.

---

About the Author

Ashu Mann is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.