Manoj Jha: My Politics Are Shaped by Constitution, Not My Surname
In a powerful statement, Manoj Jha, a teacher and Member of Parliament, asserts that his political commitments are not derived from the sociology of his surname but are firmly rooted in the normative force of the Indian Constitution. He warns that yielding to identity-based certainties comes at a steep cost, diminishing citizenship and flattening political imagination in a diverse republic.
The Danger of Identity-Based Coercion
Jha highlights a persistent expectation in public life where political positions are assumed to follow from surnames, treating citizenship as secondary. He argues that this reflects a deeper discomfort with constitutional autonomy, as people become anxious when others claim the Constitution as their primary reference point rather than ancestry. "What unsettles many is the refusal to be governed solely through identity, not so much the dissent," he notes, emphasizing that India's constitutional imagination was forged to disrupt this logic.
The Constitution, Jha explains, does not recognize citizens through surnames, clans, or inherited loyalties. Instead, it speaks in the language of equal moral agency, assuming individuals are capable of ethical reflection independent of social identities. To deny this autonomy is to hollow out the very idea of constitutional citizenship.
Weaponizing Identity in Political Discourse
In contemporary discourse, identity is increasingly weaponized as a disciplinary tool, with political disagreement recast as a deviation from communal duty. Jha describes this as a profoundly anti-constitutional move that reduces citizens to delegates of imagined majorities and transforms politics into a census of loyalties rather than a contest of ideas.
He stresses that constitutional democracy depends on an overlapping consensus—a convergence of citizens from diverse social locations around shared principles of justice, liberty, and equality. This is possible only when constitutional values are placed above inherited allegiances of caste, clan, or community. "When political judgement is expected to flow obediently from surnames, citizenship itself is reduced to an accident, and moral autonomy is quietly surrendered," Jha warns.
The Erosion of Constitutional Morality
The danger of such parochialism is not merely social fragmentation but constitutional erosion. Jha references Martha Nussbaum's observation that loyalties confined to the near and familiar can become ethically inert, preventing recognition of the equal worth of distant others. The Constitution's transformative promise lies in its insistence on enlarging our circle of obligation.
Jha points out a larger danger: when identity becomes the primary arbiter of political legitimacy, constitutional reason is displaced. Rights are defended not because they are just, but because they align with group interest, and injustice is tolerated if it benefits "one's own." This erodes constitutional morality through everyday accommodations with majoritarian convenience.
Embracing Plural Identities
Drawing on Amartya Sen's ideas, Jha argues that identity is irreducibly plural, with individuals simultaneously inhabiting multiple affiliations—professional, linguistic, regional, ideological, and ethical. He asserts that no single identity exhausts who he is or dictates what he must think. "I am a teacher in the classroom, a researcher in academic forums, a citizen in political debate, and yes, someone born into a particular community," he states.
The insistence that inherited group identity should be the default lens represents what Sen calls "singular affiliation"—a dangerous reduction that denies human complexity and is ethically coercive. Constitutional citizenship requires refusing this flattening, allowing reason and context to guide political judgements.
A Call to Defend Constitutional Autonomy
In a republic as diverse and unequal as India, Jha acknowledges the temptation to retreat into identity certainties but warns that yielding comes at a steep cost. It diminishes citizenship, flattens political imagination, and forecloses principled disagreement. "If we are serious about safeguarding the republic, we must defend not only the right to speak, but the right to think, freely, autonomously, and constitutionally," he concludes.
Anything less, Jha argues, reduces democracy to lineage, precisely the future the Constitution was written to prevent. His message underscores the need for a robust republic bound by shared commitment to justice, dignity, and freedom, rather than blood or birth.
