Two years before Tolstoy passed away at the age of 82, he wrote a letter, “A Letter to a Hindu”, dated 14 December 1908, in response to a letter from Tarak Nath Das, a Canadian immigrant from Bengal who ran the newspaper, Free Hindustan. The letter gained historical significance when Gandhi republished it with a short introduction a year later, on 19 November 1909, in his newspaper Indian Opinion published from South Africa. The letter is remarkable in many ways, but most of all due to a few conceptual terms and phrases used by Tolstoy, decades before such words gained universal meaning and circulation. I will concentrate on how Gandhi understood and used Tolstoy’s letter to understand the political predicament of his time, and more broadly seek to understand Tolstoy’s language by relating it to our contemporary understanding of the modern condition. 

The ‘enslaved’ Indians

I

In the letter, Tolstoy reversed the problem of colonisation by making Indians responsible: “What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?” 

Gandhi took this indictment seriously and in his seminal text, Hind Swaraj, also written in 1909, he elaborated on Tolstoy’s idea to argue that it was particularly two modern institutions established in colonial India by the British—education and law—that “enslaved” Indians. He put the larger blame on modern, Western civilisation. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi echoed Tolstoy: “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them.” 

Also Read | Why Ambedkar rejected Gandhi’s idea of Dalit emancipation

Tolstoy explained what he thought was the exact problem with Indians: “If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of love inherent in humanity.”

Gandhi connected Satyagraha or its imperfect English translation “passive resistance” to the “spirit of love or of truth” to argue that once love replaces hatred there can be no room for violence and enmity against anyone, including the oppressor. Tolstoy in his letter made a distinction between “the law of love” propagated by all religions, but its constant disregard by people who forcibly united the “incompatibles”: the idea of love as a virtue accepted alongside “the restraining of evil by violence”.

Gandhi took up the question of love in a generic manner in Hind Swaraj and argued the necessity for an ethic of trust rather than the divisive, third-party interference of the law when it came to the Hindu-Muslim question. However, in the context of the lack of love and use of violence in Indian society, Hind Swaraj is conspicuously silent on caste (that includes the exclusionary idea of the outcaste). It prompted historian Aishwary Kumar in his book Radical Equality to note “Gandhi’s absolute silence on caste inequality and the peculiar absence of the “untouchable”” in Hind Swaraj (though Gandhi consistently wrote and campaigned against these ills of Hindu society later). Tolstoy identified the source of British hegemony in the failure by Indians to recognise the problem of “force as the fundamental principle of the social order”. This principle is most clearly visible in the caste structure.   

II

Tolstoy’s use of the term “pseudo-religious” is ahead of his time. He explained the word as a phenomenon that has stayed on from the premodern era to become part of “the ills of nations”. Tolstoy identified pseudo-religion, or pseudo-divine power, in “the old deception of a supernatural and God-appointed authority” (from kings to priests) that justified the use of violence. It was too early in history for Tolstoy to embark on a critique of the nation as a structure of violence, but it is possible for us to do so. Not too long after Tolstoy’s letter, Rabindranath Tagore in his 1916 series of lectures on nationalism in Japan called the nation “a great menace”. The nation introduces elements of territory and population into religion and turns it into a corrupt political form where universal principles are replaced by national ones. Tagore, in his nationalism lectures, called it “organised selfishness”. Both territory and population become sources of collective paranoia. This paranoia is used to justify territorial violence. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s “two nation theory”, for instance, turned the minority question away from the language of democracy that involves political rights and constitutional safeguards towards a claim for territory based on religious identity. Nations have boxed in the meaning of religion. 

In contrast, Gandhi’s use of religion was not nationalistic like Jinnah’s or like that of the religious nationalists among Hindus. For Gandhi, religion in politics was meant to reconcile fraternal differences. Even though it was in the service of an internally-friendly nation, Gandhi did not define nation in religious terms. 

Tolstoy’s conflict with pseudo-religion and pseudo-science

III

The other term Tolstoy used which is ahead of its time is “pseudo-scientific”. In Tolstoy’s understanding, the scientific idea of modern power embodied in the will of the people and a constitutional government justify “the principle of coercion”. The justificatory use of violence merely shifted across time from “divine power” to governmental power. In a striking phrase, Tolstoy called it “scientific superstition”. Science is the new religion of superstitions. 

In a scene from Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1979 film Stalker, the writer tells a woman he meets briefly that the world is “ruled by cast-iron laws [and] insufferably boring”. He says he found the Middle Ages with their churches interesting, and then blurts out: “Because if god is also a triangle, then I don’t know what to think”. There is humour and concern in that statement. It connects to Octavio Paz’s 1981 essay on Fyodor Dostoevsky where he connected the problem of “ideologue” with the crisis of modern pedagogy: “The tyranny of the ideologue is the soliloquy of a sadistic and pedantic professor, intent on making society a square and each man a triangle.” Holding scientific rationality as the only authentic and admissible form of knowledge, Enlightenment thinkers introduced a schizophrenic understanding of human societies as well as human beings, where we are conflicted between ideas and feelings, theory and reality. E.M. Cioran put it presciently in The Short History of Decay (1975): “[Man] no longer lives in existence, but in the theory of existence.”

Also Read | Mahatma Gandhi, in his own words

The problem of pseudo-scientificity has also ravaged life worlds. The Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 was followed by the Chernobyl disaster two years later. In the last section of Svetlana Alexievich’s Chernobyl Prayer (1997), we learn of a 17-year-old boy Andrei who hanged himself with his belt in an empty classroom after being operated upon twice for illnesses caused by radiation. His last words to his friend were: “We will die and become part of science. We will die and everyone will forget us.” The scientific understanding of the world, its fetish of technology, experiments, and solutions, devastated the 20th century. We need science, but not at the cost of life and its memories being erased by scientific projects. Gandhi’s warnings against machinery in Hind Swaraj and in later writings make a qualitative distinction between machinery as a fetish (or the cult of technology) and machinery as such. Many thinkers and writers have voiced their concerns about the divine power granted to scientific thinking. The critiques of Nazi distortions of science to promote racist theories in the 1930s and 1940s do not dwell on the political problem of science being granted an unquestionable status that lends itself to the deliberate promotion of fake theories. Scientific theories of human life must be questioned.

IV

Tolstoy had a remedial prescription against pseudo-religion and pseudo-science. He identified it with “the spiritual element” in individuals. Tolstoy did not define the spiritual in religious terms, but in the universal spirit of love. The idea resonates in Gandhi’s idea of love-force as the primary impulse of Satyagraha. Any collective, national or ideological, cannot ignore or coerce the individual source of the spiritual element in the world. The broadening of the scientific idea of human society has ensured that nations behave like machines. Tagore had the insight to describe modern power as “a scientific product made in the political laboratory of the Nation, through the dissolution of personal humanity”. The spiritual component in us is neither religious nor scientific. It is an unnameable element of resistance. Writing in 1933 in Harijan, Gandhi called it “the inner voice,” the voice of “conscience”. A voice that resists the bureaucratic and rationalist designs of power. 

Elaborated from a presentation on Gandhi and Tolstoy made by this author at a conference on Gandhi’s 155 birth anniversary in Russian House, New Delhi, on 3 October.

Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee is the author of Nehru and the Spirit of India.

Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, currently serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail for his involvement in a terror funding case, has recently submitted an affidavit to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) tribunal.

In this document, Yasin Malik asserts that he has renounced violence and embraced a peaceful approach to resistance. He stated, “I gave up arms, I’m a Gandhian now,” highlighting his transformation since 1994.

According to India Today, Yasin Malik in his affidavit has explained his decision to abandon violence was aimed at promoting a “united, independent Kashmir” but through peaceful means.

Embraced the Gandhian Philosophy: Yasin Malik

As the founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front-Yasin (JKLF-Y), Malik played a significant role in advocating armed militancy in the Kashmir Valley during the 1990s.

In his affidavit, he expressed a commitment to following the “Gandhian way of resistance,” indicating a profound shift in his ideology. This statement aims to reflect his current stance on conflict resolution and political activism.

Yasin Malik, currently serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail following his conviction in a terror funding case, is a key accused in the 1990 murder of four Indian Air Force personnel in Rawalpora, Srinagar.

Earlier this year, witnesses identified him as the primary shooter in that incident. Furthermore, in May 2022, he received a life sentence related to a terror financing investigation conducted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

In his affidavit, Malik asserted that during the early 1990s, several state officials guaranteed him that the Kashmir issue would be addressed through “meaningful dialogue”, India Today reported.

Yasin Malik claimed he was promised that if he called for a unilateral ceasefire, all charges against him and members of JKLF-Y would be dismissed.

UAPA Review of JKLF-Y Ban

Yasin Malik‘s affidavit comes as the UAPA tribunal reviews the ban on JKLF-Y, which has been a prominent player in the armed struggle in Kashmir. His declaration of non-violence seeks to influence the tribunal’s assessment, potentially impacting the future of the organization.

In a recent order published in the official gazette, the UAPA tribunal classified JKLF-Y as an “unlawful organization” for the next five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. The ruling highlighted the group’s connections to prominent political and governmental figures since 1994, raising concerns about its legitimacy.

Lok Sabha Member of Parliament Kangana Ranaut on Wednesday courted a new controversy with a social media post on Mahatma Gandhi and former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. This comes just days after she faced backlash over her comments on the farmers’ protest.

In a series of stories on social media platform Instagram, Ranaut said, “Desh ke pita nahi, desh ke to lal hote hai. Dhanye hai Bharat ma ke ye lal (‘The country does not have fathers; it has sons. Blessed are these sons of Mother India).”

The stories were followed by a post where she credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for carrying forward Gandhi’s legacy on cleanliness in the country.

Ranaut’s stories was subjected to severe criticism from political leaders from Congress as well as the BJP.

Manoranjan Kalia, a senior BJP leader from Punjab, criticised Ranaut for her latest remarks.

“I condemn Kangana Ranaut’s comments made on Gandhi ji’s 155th birth anniversary. In her short political career, she has developed a habit of making controversial statements,” Kalia said in a video posted on social media.

“Politics is not her field. Politics is a serious affair. One must think before speaking…Her controversial remarks cause trouble for the party,” he added.

Congress leader Supriya Shrinate criticising Ranaut for her “lewd jibe” at Gandhi.

“BJP MP Kangana made this lewd jibe on Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. Godse worshippers draw distinctions between Bapu and Shastri ji. Will Narendra Modi wholeheartedly forgive his party’s new Godse devotee? There is the Father of the Nation, there are sons, and there are martyrs. Everyone deserves respect,” Shrinate said in a post on X.

Earlier, Ranaut had to face backlash for advocating the return of the three farm laws, which were repealed in 2021.

She had said that the farmers’ agitation against the farm laws was leading to “Bangladesh-type situation in India”, claiming that “dead bodies were hanging, and rapes were taking place” at the protest sites.

BJP distanced itself from her statements. The Mandi MP later apologised for her statement and took them back. She acknowledged that she should remember she is not just an artist but also a BJP member.

In Iconoclast: A Reflective Biography of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, Dr Anand Teltumbde, a distinguished public intellectual, and leading authority on the Dalit movement, presents a groundbreaking biography of Dr B.R. Ambedkar. Teltumbde strips away the layers of myth and hyperbole to reveal the man behind the legend.

Teltumbde delves into the life of Ambedkar, situating him within the dynamic context of his time. He explores the complexities of Ambedkar’s persona, offering a nuanced portrait that challenges conventional perceptions. Rich with photographs, this biography paints a vivid picture of Ambedkar as a visionary, as a human, and above all, as an iconoclast driven by a relentless pursuit of social justice and equality. From his tireless advocacy for the Dalit community to his visionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, Ambedkar’s legacy reverberates through the ages, inspiring generations to strive for a more just society. An excerpt from the chapter “Dalits get their leader”:

***

While striking the Poona Pact, Gandhi promised to devote himself to the task of eradicating untouchability. Just five days after signing the Poona Pact, Gandhi founded the All India Anti Untouchability League on 30 September 1932, which was later renamed as Harijan Sevak Sangh (Servants of Untouchables Society). At the time, industrialist Ghanshyam Das Birla was its founding president with Amritlal Thakkar as its secretary. In 1933, Gandhi renamed his newspaper Young India as Harijan, and undertook a twenty-one-day ‘self-purication fast’ against untouchability. He asked for a message for the inaugural issue of Harijan from Ambedkar, to which Ambedkar sent a blunt reply: ‘I feel I cannot give a message. For I believe it will be a most unwarranted presumption on my part to suppose that I have sufficient worth in the eyes of the Hindus which would make them treat any message from me with respect . . . I am therefore sending you the accompanying statement for publication in your Harijan.’

The essence of his statement was what he would elaborate on in his Annihilation of Caste after four years: ‘Nothing can emancipate the Out-caste except the destruction of the Caste system. Nothing can help to save Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu Faith of this odious and vicious dogma.’

Gandhi also took a march across the country from November 1933 through August 1934, covering 12,500 miles by vehicle and foot and collecting Rs 8,00,000 for the Harijan fund. Ambedkar was taken onboard of the Anti-Untouchability League, one of the three Untouchables among the total nine members. He anticipated it to be a comprehensive civil rights group focused on securing civic liberties for Dalits, including access to public spaces, utilization of public amenities, and broader civil freedoms, all under Dalit control.

Also Read | Ambedkar, Gandhi and Jinnah

However, Gandhi transformed it into a paternalistic organization, overseen by caste Hindus aiming for the ‘upliftment’ of Untouchables. This stemmed from his fundamental philosophy, which regarded untouchability as a sin within Hinduism, to be expiated by the Hindus. It was not an inherent aspect of the religion, but rather a flaw that could be rectified. According to Gandhi, upper-caste Hindus should acknowledge and atone for this sin, make reparations, and undertake initiatives for the purification and elevation of Dalits. This involved activities such as engaging in slum clean-up efforts, advocating against alcoholism, promoting vegetarianism, and similar endeavours.

Ambedkar proposed that the League could undertake a campaign for intercaste marriages and intercaste dining so as to weaken castes. But the League rejected it. All the untouchable members resigned immediately.

For Ambedkar, the entire plan of the Harijan Sevak Sangh was worse than useless. He condemned the Harijan Sevak Sangh in strong language: ‘The work of the Sangh is of the most inconsequential kind. It does not catch anyone’s imagination. It neglects the most urgent purposes for which the Untouchables need help and assistance. The Sangh rigorously excludes the Untouchables from its management. The Untouchables are no more than beggars, mere recipients of charity.’

After induction on the Board of the Anti-Untouchability League formed in the aftermath of the Poona Pact, Ambedkar wrote a six-page letter on 14 November 1932 to A.V. Thakkar, general secretary, outlining his views on the concrete programme to be taken up by the League. Pointing out the need to take up a campaign to secure civil rights for the Depressed Classes, he preferred the behavioural school that focuses on amelioration of the social environment as against improvement in individual behaviour, as it believes that the latter is largely conditioned by the former.

He explained, ‘It starts with the hypothesis that the fate of the individual is governed by the environment and the circumstances he is obliged to live under, and if an individual is suffering from want and misery it is because his environment is not propitious.’ He cautioned that it would entail violence in rural areas and ‘criminal prosecutions of one side or the other’. He also pointed out that in these struggles ‘the Depressed Classes will suffer badly because the Police and the Magistracy will always be against them’. ‘The Police and Magistracy are corrupt as they could be, but what is worse is that they are definitely political in the sense that they are out not to see that justice is done, but to see that the dignity and interests of the caste Hindus as against the Depressed Classes are upheld.’ Therefore, he recommended the League to create an army of workers in the rural parts, ‘who will encourage the Depressed Classes to fight for their rights and will help them in any legal proceedings arising therefrom to a successful issue’. He emphasized that ‘this programme involves social disturbance and even bloodshed. But I do not think that it can be avoided’.

The other measures he proposed were: creating equality of opportunity, social intercourse and employment of an agency to carry out the programme. This reflected a profound learning from his experience in Mahad wherein he thwarted the counterattack by the Dalits when they were attacked by the caste Hindu goons for polluting the Chowdar Tank. It does not spell just resistance, which in any case needed to follow as part of the struggle, but more importantly it becomes a cultural shock to challenge their age-old customs and traditions. His attitude to violence also reveals that there are situations where violence is inevitable. If he concedes that violence could not be avoided in a simple case of changing peoples’ behaviour, he would surely see what would entail if the societal economic structure needed to be overhauled. The question of violence or non-violence is not a question of principle, it is a question of strategy. He rightly reads here violence as being a constitutive element of any secure social order.

Also Read | How London taught Ambedkar to ‘educate, agitate, organise’

The other measures he suggested were bringing about ‘equality of opportunity’, social intercourse, and employing an agency to implement the programme.

This letter with such a clear-headed contribution was not even acknowledged by Thakkar. The League continued work under the influence of Gandhian paternalism and did not want even to seek views of the Depressed Class members. Realising it, Ambedkar resigned from the League, which was later followed by P. Balu, Srinivasan and Rajah.

He concluded that the Untouchables see the Sangh ‘as a foreign body set up by the Hindus with some ulterior motive… the whole object is to create a slave mentality among the Untouchables towards their Hindu masters’. This, to Ambedkar, was the major thrust of paternalism. More importantly, he explicated, ‘The outcaste is a byproduct of the caste system. There will be outcastes as long as there are castes. Nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system. Nothing can help Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except, the purging of Hindu faith of this odious and vicious dogma.’

If only this principle was stressed in the Constituent Assembly, the euphoria over the abolition of untouchability could have been punctured and possibly the intrigues to preserve castes with an alibi of social justice could have been thwarted. Unfortunately, not only would he not raise this issue in the Constituent Assembly but when raised by others would choose to stay quiet.

Excerpted with permission of Penguin Random House India from Iconoclast: A Reflective Biography of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar by Anand Teltumbde.

Mahatma Gandhi speaks with Jawaharlal Nehru in Bombay, in 1946. Both Gandhi and Nehru represented a tradition of “thinking-in-action” or “thinking-in-politics” that characterised Indian political thought during the anti-colonial movement. 
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

Yogendra Yadav took a dig(Indian Express, August 26) at practitioners of modern political thought and theory in India by pronouncing an exaggerated judgement that political thinkers who, during the anticolonial movement, belonged to a tradition of thinking-in-action or thinking-in-politics have now disappeared from prominence. Despite conceding the existence of formidable names in the field of Indian political thought since Independence, Yadav’s complaint centres around the argument that political thinking has given way to a more academically constrained world and craft of political theory. This complaint is true to some extent, but the reason behind this shift has to be understood by certain key changes in our political history.

Figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar were produced by the anticolonial struggle where they did politics as well as put their thoughts on paper to be read by the public at large. These figures produced a reading public that contributed to the making of India’s politically conscious civil society. Since India’s political thought uniquely arose from the real field of politics, our trajectory was shaped by an emergent, contestable, and fluid set of ideas that had a corresponding relationship with the shaping of our politics during colonial and postcolonial times. This meant that ideas were always under contest and arguments got reshaped by the force of these contests. If we look at the Constituent Assembly Debates on citizenship in 1950 or the debates around minority rights, we get the idea of a vibrant and occasionally bitter struggle for a constitutional ratification of what comprises people’s rights.

Also Read | Theory as remedy

These debates have contributed to the strong foundations of our democracy; the wide level of political representation made it possible. Even though everyone participating in the debates was not a thinker, they were ideologues who could articulate their opinions coherently.

Unlike the West, our political ideas were shaped by thinkers who were not formally trained in the subject of philosophy or political thought. Though Ambedkar had a doctorate in Economics and practised Law, and Gandhi and Nehru earned degrees in law, much of their writing was a combination of their reading of Western thought and an imaginative engagement with their own historical, social, and political reality. Nehru’s attempt at writing a “living history” of India, Ambedkar’s theory of minority rights, and Gandhi’s non-violent politics of truth are unique proposals with universal resonance in the 20th century.

Indian political thought was never very Indian but was in deep affinity with modern trends of thought in Europe. Yet, the interpretation of secularism in India has been understood by theorists as more culture-inclusive than how it has been thought of in France and other nations. Tagore’s radical critique of the nation idea has no parallel in the intellectual thought of the 20th-century West. Indians have thought independently, and our theorists have explained it to the world.

In postcolonial India, the inheritance of political thought was bifurcated into two spheres, party politics and academia. Once institutionalised, politics was reduced to ideological polemics and the lack of imaginative leaders ensured the death of political thinking in India’s mainstream parties. It was during social movements and the Emergency that politics was transformed into a battle for ideas. In academia, the theory took over thinking. I have often complained in amusement that my own subject, political science, has been reduced to “rethinking” in every other seminar.

The theory is an important means to engage both with radical and normative values and the principles of politics, as well as a critique of existing structures of thought in the world and within a nation. But theory is highly jargonised, which limits it to a set of aspirational “experts” who argue in a language that often does not speak adequately to a larger audience. The language of theory is the chief culprit in limiting its sphere of influence and understanding.

In fact, overtly Westernised academia has successfully managed to replace thinking with theory. It, however, cannot be said of scholars such as Ashis Nandy, Gopal Guru, Faisal Devji, and Sharmila Rege, among others, who have written in accessible language without compromising on rigour. There are younger scholars following in their footsteps today who write on political issues in public.

Also Read | Politics of history

I would now like to reverse the question raised by Yadav: Do political parties and activists, or the larger world of politics, need political thinking or theory? There is enough literature to read and engage with for political leaders and ideologues. But what we mostly see is an interest in political biographies (often hagiographies, or ideologically-motivated criticisms) and not political thought. The intellectual lethargy and lack of imagination in India’s political class and the (often) rigid ideological frameworks of political activists cannot be exempted from the ebbing interest in political thinkers in the country. Public engagement with thinkers should be part of a creative necessity for vibrant politics. Currently, Rahul Gandhi’s “Mohabbat ki dukaan” (the love store) is an exception in the way it is trying to reinvent Gandhi’s politics of love in the face of communal and hate politics.

There are enough public intellectuals in India who can be taken seriously. But does the political class pay heed to their concerns and warnings? Do they consider and discuss these ideas in their internal meetings? Do Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Suhas Palshikar share their incisive political opinions for a reading public sans people doing politics? The “poverty” of theory lies in the reception. Yadav must ask the question to the world he belongs to. India’s political thinkers are very much around. It is a political engagement with them that is missing.

Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee is the author of Nehru and the Spirit of India.

A.G. Noorani is remembered as an intellectual who upheld the principles of democracy and constitutionalism throughout his long and distinguished career.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu Archives

Renowned lawyer, constitutional expert, and prolific author who made significant contributions to legal scholarship and political discourse in India for over six decades, A.G. Noorani is no more. A long-term contributor to Frontline, Noorani was widely respected for his insightful analysis on constitutional and human rights issues.

Born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1930, Abdul Ghafoor Abdul Majeed Noorani began his career as a lawyer in the Bombay High Court in 1953. Though he practised law, Noorani devoted much of his time to writing on legal, political, and historical topics. His sharp intellect and deep knowledge of constitutional matters made him a sought-after commentator on Indian politics and jurisprudence.

Noorani was a regular contributor to leading publications like Economic & Political Weekly, The Hindustan Times, and The Statesman. However, it was his association with Frontline magazine, which began in the 1980s, that brought his incisive writing to a wide audience. His column “Constitutional Questions” ran for over three decades and was known for its meticulous research and balanced analysis of complex legal issues.

As an author, Noorani penned over a dozen books on various aspects of Indian constitutional law, politics, and history. Some of his notable works include The Kashmir Question (1964), Ministers’ Misconduct (1973), Constitutional Questions and Citizens’ Rights (2006), and The RSS: A Menace to India (2019). His writings often took a critical look at government overreach and erosion of democratic norms.

Noorani was known for his strong advocacy of civil liberties and secularism. He was a vocal critic of laws that he believed infringed on fundamental rights, such as preventive detention laws and restrictions on freedom of expression. His legal expertise made him a respected voice in debates on judicial reforms and accountability.

Though he never held any official position, Noorani’s opinions carried weight in legal and political circles. He was often consulted on constitutional matters and his writings were cited in academic works and even Supreme Court judgments.

Noorani leaves behind a rich legacy of constitutional scholarship and political commentary. He is remembered as an intellectual who upheld the principles of democracy and constitutionalism throughout his long and distinguished career.

While revered in progressive and liberal circles, Noorani was not without his critics. Some felt his views were too idealistic or out of step with changing political realities. Nonetheless, his commitment to constitutional values and rigorous analysis earned him respect across the political spectrum.

Here’s a curated list of articles Noorani wrote for Frontline. We have kept them outside the paywall to honour the genius that he was. Please read them and share your comments.