By Mohammed Talha Siddi Bapa
In a recent high-level interaction at the Prime Minister’s Office, Ajit Doval met a delegation of Muslim professionals – industrialists, educationists, and public figures – in what was widely seen as an outreach effort. The group, led by businessman Zafar Sareshwala, engaged in a discussion on national cohesion, opportunity, and the role of minorities in India’s development.
During the meeting, Doval offered a striking metaphor: India, he said, is a “large ship” in which every citizen is a sailor, bound by a shared destiny – “we sail or sink together.” The sentiment is compelling. In a country as vast and diverse as India, unity is not merely desirable; it is essential.
The conversation unfolded in the controlled, formal setting of the PMO – far removed from the layered and often uneven realities of everyday life across India’s towns and neighbourhoods. While such interactions bring influential voices into direct conversation with the state, they also highlight a quiet contrast: between elite dialogue in cosy, air-conditioned rooms and the lived experiences of citizens in crowded localities, shared marketplaces, and tightly knit mohallas where coexistence is practised daily, often without recognition.
It is here, in these everyday spaces, that the idea of “sailing together” is tested – not as metaphor, but as lived reality.
Representation Beyond the Room
The presence of accomplished professionals in such meetings signals intent: to engage, to reassure, to communicate. Yet it also raises a structural question that cannot be ignored: who speaks for a community as internally diverse as Indian Muslims?
Indian Muslims are not a monolith. They are divided by language, region, class, and experience. The concerns of a business leader in a metropolitan city may not mirror those of a small trader in a district town, a student navigating identity in a university campus, or a family negotiating everyday social dynamics in a mixed neighbourhood.
Elite-led engagement, while valuable, risks becoming symbolic rather than representative if it does not connect with these broader realities. The challenge is not the presence of such voices, but their limitation in capturing the full spectrum of lived experiences.
Dialogue or Direction?
High-level interactions between the state and selected representatives often carry the language of dialogue. But they also operate within a framework where power is not evenly distributed. This raises a subtle but important question:
Are these engagements spaces for mutual exchange, or do they also serve to set expectations – about how communities should interpret their role within the national framework?
There is no simple answer. Yet in a democracy, the strength of dialogue lies not only in being heard, but in ensuring that engagement does not feel like direction delivered from above, however well-intentioned it may be.
Identity in the Shadow of Security
Perhaps the most significant dimension of the interaction lies in its framing. The conversation was led by the National Security Adviser – an office associated with safeguarding the nation against external and internal threats. These threats are not limited to conventional security concerns such as territorial integrity or external aggression; they increasingly include social challenges – polarisation, erosion of trust between communities, and the spread of divisive rhetoric – that can weaken the internal cohesion of a nation.
Within this context, the emphasis on avoiding a singular identity and recognising ‘multiple identities’ acquires layered meaning. In principle, the idea of layered identity aligns with democratic pluralism. Citizens can be simultaneously Indian, regional, linguistic, and religious without contradiction. Yet the framing matters.
When identity is discussed within a security lens, it raises a deeper question: Is identity being acknowledged as a natural feature of diversity, or subtly positioned as something that requires moderation for the sake of stability?
For many Indian Muslims, identity is not a point of tension with citizenship. It is part of how citizenship is lived. The Constitution does not ask citizens to dilute their beliefs; it guarantees the freedom to practise them. The challenge, therefore, lies not in identity itself, but in how it is perceived within institutional discourse.
The Everyday Reality of Cohesion
Beyond policy discussions and official statements lies a quieter, more enduring reality. Across India, in towns and cities alike, millions of citizens negotiate diversity not through speeches, but through routine interaction.
In the narrow lanes of mohallas, in shared workplaces, in local markets, people of different backgrounds engage not as representatives of communities, but as neighbours, colleagues, and fellow citizens. Disagreements exist, tensions surface, but coexistence continues, often without recognition. It is within these spaces that the idea of a shared national journey is sustained.
Despite episodes of social strain, large sections of the Muslim community have demonstrated a consistent commitment to constitutional order and civic restraint. This is not always visible in public discourse, but it is evident in the absence of widespread retaliatory mobilisation, in continued participation in democratic processes, and in the everyday choice to remain invested in a shared national future. This quiet adherence to stability is a form of participation in the national project. Yet it rarely receives formal acknowledgment.
The Asymmetry of Messaging
The metaphor of “sailing together” carries moral force. But its impact depends on how it is communicated and to whom.
In recent years, public discourse has periodically witnessed instances of hate speech, communal polarisation, and mob violence. These incidents, while not defining the entirety of social life, are significant enough to shape perception. When they are seen as inadequately addressed, they create a sense of imbalance. In such a context, repeated calls for unity directed at minority communities can be received not as collective appeals, but as disproportionately placed expectations.
This raises a broader question: If unity is a shared responsibility, shouldn’t its messaging be equally directed at all sources of division?
Recognition of restraint, acknowledgment of participation, and visible responses to all forms of social discord are essential to ensuring that the language of unity is perceived as fair and inclusive.
Who Bears the Burden?
At the heart of the debate lies an uncomfortable but necessary question: In moments of social strain, who is implicitly expected to uphold cohesion?
If one section of society is repeatedly reminded of its responsibility to maintain unity, while instances of divisive behaviour elsewhere are addressed with less visibility or urgency, the balance begins to tilt. Unity, in such circumstances, risks being framed not as a shared endeavour, but as a burden unevenly distributed.
A democracy does not weaken because of diversity. It weakens when responses to division appear selective, or when the responsibility for stability is perceived as unequal.
The Constitutional Compass
India’s strength has always rested on its constitutional framework, a framework that does not merely accommodate diversity but affirms it: equality before the law, freedom of religion, and protection of cultural and educational rights.
These are not abstract ideals. They are operational principles that define how citizens relate to the state and to one another. Any discourse on unity must therefore be anchored in these guarantees, ensuring that plural identities are treated not as challenges, but as integral components of the national fabric.
Beyond Symbolic Outreach
Engagement, if it is to be meaningful, must move beyond episodic interactions with select groups. It must include broader, grassroots participation; continuous channels of dialogue, and institutional accountability in addressing all forms of social discord. Only then can the gap between official intent and public perception begin to narrow.
A Shared Voyage Requires Shared Assurance
The idea that India is a ship carrying all its citizens forward is both powerful and true. Its success depends on collective effort, mutual trust, and a shared sense of purpose. But for that idea to resonate across society, it must be accompanied by balance in expectation and recognition in equal measure.
Unity cannot be sustained by reminding some more than others of their responsibility. It is strengthened when every citizen, regardless of identity, feels equally acknowledged, equally protected, and equally invested in the journey.
If India is to truly sail together, the call must not only be collective; it must also be seen to be collective. Only then can the metaphor move beyond symbolism and find meaning in the lived realities of the people it seeks to unite.
