Loving India is not the same as supporting its government: patriotism, dissent and the Modi era

A short Instagram reel shows the Indian flag against the sky and makes a direct argument: “Patriotism stands for loving the country. It was never about loving the government.” It ends with “Jai Hind”. Shared by the account @dainik_v4 on 26 May 2026, the post places a familiar national symbol beside a political question: does loyalty to India require loyalty to those governing it?

A nation, its government and its ruling party are not the same thing

India is its people, institutions, Constitution, territory and shared public life. A government holds public office for a limited time and must answer to the public. A political party competes to govern. These are connected, but they are not interchangeable. Supporting government decisions can be patriotic; opposing those decisions can be patriotic too. Neither agreement nor disagreement automatically proves a person’s love for India.

As of October 2026, Prime Minister Narendra Modi leads the Union government, and the Bharatiya Janata Party is the principal party of the ruling coalition. His government and supporters can point to elections, public programmes and voter backing as reasons to defend its record. Critics can question particular policies, public spending, civil liberties and the fairness of institutions. The question is whether arguments are answered with evidence and democratic accountability—or whether political loyalty is treated as the measure of citizenship.

What the Constitution protects

Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression. That protection includes space for citizens to criticise public policy, political leaders and state decisions. The right is not unlimited: Article 19(2) permits legally grounded reasonable restrictions for specified purposes, including public order, national security-related interests and defamation. But criticism of a government is not, by itself, evidence of disloyalty to the country.

This distinction matters in practice. Voters cannot meaningfully evaluate those in power if questioning their claims is treated as a moral offence. Nor should criticism be exempt from scrutiny merely because it comes from an opposition party or a protest movement. An honest standard tests the underlying facts and conduct rather than deciding in advance which side is patriotic.

Why the distinction matters in the present political climate

The reel’s caption includes hashtags about protests, democracy, the Election Commission and alleged “vote chori”. Those tags indicate the uploader’s political framing; they do not establish that votes were stolen, identify any particular election irregularity or prove wrongdoing by the government or the Election Commission. Such allegations need specific records, dates and independent examination.

There is, however, a documented reason to insist on scrutiny of those in power. In February 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, finding that secrecy about political donations violated voters’ right to information and that allowing unlimited corporate contributions through the relevant legal changes was arbitrary. The Union government had defended donor confidentiality as a way to encourage donations through formal banking channels. The ruling demonstrates that challenging a government-backed policy can reveal a constitutional defect without being an attack on India itself.

In a 2020 public lecture, then Supreme Court judge D. Y. Chandrachud warned against branding dissent “anti-national” or “anti-democratic” and described dissent as essential to a functioning democracy. That is a constitutional argument about the value of disagreement, not a claim that every protester or critic is correct.

Patriotism needs accountability, not compulsory agreement

There is a difference between respecting the office of the Prime Minister and giving every decision by a Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt. Citizens may admire Narendra Modi, support the BJP or back the government’s policies; they may also oppose them peacefully. Neither group holds exclusive ownership of the Indian flag or of national identity. Politicians and their supporters are entitled to contest criticism, but labelling peaceful and evidence-based dissent as disloyal solely because it challenges those in power is unjust: it confuses temporary political authority with the enduring country citizens share.

The reel expresses a political principle, not an empirical verdict on any one election or protest. Its strongest point survives scrutiny: love for India cannot be measured by obedience to the government of the day. A patriot can celebrate national achievements, expose failures, defend institutions and demand answers from leaders. Under this government, as under any future government, the test of democratic patriotism is whether citizens are free to do all of those things.