In recent years, the Indian political landscape has increasingly come to resemble a tug-of-war between two ideological extremes. This has been reflected in the columns of The Indian Express: On one side stands the New Left, championed by thinkers like Yogendra Yadav, who argue for a politics rooted in the grievances of underprivileged castes and classes. On the other, the cultural nationalism of the Right, articulated by voices like Ram Madhav, seeks to anchor India’s identity in Hindutva values and civilisational pride. Both camps offer compelling narratives — but is India condemned to oscillate between these poles? Or, is there space for a third path: A radical centrism that draws from the strengths of both without succumbing to their excesses?
Radical centrism is not a tepid compromise. It is a bold reimagining of Indian politics — one that embraces pluralism without erasing identity, that pursues growth without abandoning equity, that honours our civilisation without resisting openness, and that seeks unity without enforcing uniformity. It is a politics that refuses to choose between Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, between ‘Rajaji’ C Rajagopalachari and B R Ambedkar, between the moral clarity of the Left and the cultural confidence of the Right. Instead, it seeks to synthesise their virtues into a coherent, future-facing vision.
At the heart of radical centrism lies a commitment to Indian pluralism — not as a passive tolerance of difference, but as an active celebration of it. Nehru’s vision of India as a secular, inclusive democracy remains foundational. But radical centrism must go further: It must recognise that pluralism is not merely about religion or language — it is about lived realities across caste, gender, region, and class. This means rejecting both the homogenising impulse of cultural nationalism and the fragmenting impulse of identity politics. It means building coalitions that transcend narrow vote banks and speak to a shared Indian destiny. It means affirming that a Dalit woman in Bihar and a tribal farmer in Chhattisgarh are not just symbols of marginalisation — they are central to the Indian story.
Radical centrism must also reclaim nationalism from the clutches of exclusion. Sardar Patel’s robust nationalism was rooted in pragmatism and unity, not in cultural supremacy. India needs a nationalism that binds rather than blinds — a patriotism that is confident but not chauvinistic. This nationalism, as I argued in my book The Battle of Belonging, must be civic, not ethno-religious. It must honour the Constitution as the ultimate expression of Indian values. It must see dissent not as betrayal, but as a sign of democratic health. And it must recognise that the idea of India is not static — it is a living, evolving conversation.
Economic liberalism, as championed by Rajaji and implemented by Manmohan Singh, has lifted millions out of poverty. But it has also deepened inequalities and alienated large swathes of the population. Radical centrism must embrace markets without worshipping them. It must pursue growth with a moral compass. This means investing in public goods — education, healthcare, infrastructure — while encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation through incentives to invest and by slashing regulatory red tape. It means reforming welfare to be targeted and efficient, not populist and wasteful. And it means recognising that economic dignity is as vital as economic opportunity.
In an era of polarisation, consensus-building is often dismissed as weakness. But Atal Bihari Vajpayee showed that consensus can be a source of strength. His ability to bring together diverse voices — within his party and beyond — was not just political skill; it was democratic wisdom. In our bitterly polarised politics, radical centrism must revive this spirit. It must prioritise dialogue over dogma, negotiation over noise. It must build institutions that are resilient and responsive. And it must recognise that governance is not a zero-sum game — it is a shared endeavour.
Finally, radical centrism must place social justice at its core. Ambedkar’s passionate advocacy for the rights of the oppressed was not a sectional demand — it was a universal call for dignity. His vision of constitutional morality must guide our politics. This means confronting caste discrimination not just in rhetoric but in policy. It means ensuring representation in institutions, access to opportunity, and protection under law. It means recognising that justice is not a favour — it is a foundational promise.
What would a radical centrist agenda look like in practice? The promotion of constitutional pluralism is fundamental: Defend secularism, federalism, and minority rights while promoting cultural dialogue and mutual respect. Inclusive growth must follow: Combine market reforms with targeted social investment, especially in education, health, and digital infrastructure. Bat strongly for our civic nationalism: Promote a shared Indian identity rooted in constitutional values, not religious or ethnic exclusivity, but simultaneously stand for a robust defence and a vigorous foreign policy that effectively promotes Indian interests around the globe. Institutional reform is essential: Strengthen the independence and capacity of democratic institutions — from the judiciary to the Election Commission. Encourage the free press and civil society to reflect the concerns of the aam aadmi between elections, serving as an essential safety valve for the political pressure-cooker. For this, participatory governance is vital: Encourage citizen engagement, decentralisation, and transparency in policymaking.
This is not a utopian wishlist. It is the set of convictions I have held since I came into politics, that I have articulated in political forums, declaimed from public platforms and advocated in my writings. I believe it constitutes a pragmatic roadmap for a politics that is principled, inclusive, and future-ready. And it does not seek power for its own sake — it seeks purpose.
India’s political discourse has increasingly been trapped in a binary: The Left versus the Right, secularism versus nationalism, Hindutva versus minorities, redistribution versus growth. But this binary is both reductive and corrosive. It forces citizens to choose sides when they would rather choose solutions.
I have often been attacked for seeing merit in some positions of the “other side”. But for me, the only side I have been consistently on is India’s. India is too complex, too diverse, and too dynamic to be governed by ideological rigidity. Its challenges require a politics that is agile, inclusive, and visionary.
To me, radical centrism is not the middle of the road — it is the high road. It is not about splitting the difference — it is about redefining the difference. And it is not about avoiding extremes — it is about integrating their insights into a coherent whole. As India marches towards 2047, let us ask: Can we build a politics that reflects the best of our traditions and the boldest of our dreams? Can we move beyond the binary and embrace the possibility of radical centrism?
The answer, perhaps, lies not in choosing sides — but in choosing India.
The writer is the fourth-term Congress MP for Thiruvananthapuram (Lok Sabha)
Radical centrism must also reclaim nationalism from the clutches of exclusion. (Illustration by C R Sasikumar) 
Share
