SIR Through the Lens of Sir Isaac Newton >>>>> Pondering Parakala at Ghanta's Democratic Platform : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 SIR Through the Lens of Sir Isaac Newton

Pondering Parakala at 

Ghanta's Democratic Platform

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao (July 2, 2026)

Sir Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, formulated more than three centuries ago: inertia, force or acceleration, and action-reaction, serve as a foundational framework for understanding physical systems. These principles offer a metaphor for democratic governance, suggesting that institutions and societies often display similar dynamics of resistance to change and reactionary forces.

They resist abrupt disruptions, respond to powerful interventions, and generate reactions outlasting the original action. This striking parallel emerged while listening to Dr Parakala Prabhakar’s PV Narasimha Rao Endowment Lecture at Dr BR Ambedkar Open University (On July 2, 2026), organised under Professor Ghanta Chakrapani's stewardship. Drawing upon Dr Parakala’s lecture, this article presents his arguments, offering an objective reflection on larger constitutional, electoral, and democratic questions.

At a time when university campuses face a perceptible decline in vibrant socio-political engagement, it is heartening to witness an academic initiative that revives informed public discourse. From the beginning of his tenure as Vice-Chancellor, Ghanta Chakrapani has sought to transform the university by creating platforms for discussion, debate, deliberation, dialogue, critique, and intellectual engagement on public issues. He has reaffirmed the historic role of universities as spaces where ideas are examined rather than merely applauded.

The PV Narasimha Rao Endowment Lecture is one such initiative. It is befitting that an institution named after Dr BR Ambedkar should honour one of India's most scholarly Prime Ministers through an annual lecture devoted to the Republic. This year's choice of Dr Parakala Prabhakar: political economist, public intellectual, and author, to speak on ‘SIR 2025-26: Dismantling the Idea of India?’ was highly contemporary. The lecture deserved careful attention because it invited the audience to examine the constitutional implications of an electoral process that ordinarily remains confined to administrative discussion.

Parakala commenced his lecture with an unmistakable note of concern. Democracies, he observed, seldom experience abrupt constitutional ruptures; rather, they undergo gradual transformations through seemingly procedural or administrative measures whose cumulative impact becomes evident over time. Against this backdrop, he invited the audience to look beyond the technical dimensions of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and examine its larger implications and ramifications for India's constitutional democracy.

He was careful to acknowledge that every democracy requires credible and accurate electoral rolls, as the elimination of ineligible entries is an objective no conscientious citizen would dispute. However, his concern centred on how the exercise was conceived and implemented, urging the audience to distinguish between an administrative purpose and its constitutional consequences.

Newton's first law finds democratic resonance in the idea that extraordinary institutional interventions must rest on compelling, transparent, and publicly defensible reasons. Parakala argues that when established processes are supplemented by exceptional measures, public confidence rests on providing clarity regarding necessity, methodology, and safeguards, as questions strengthen rather than weaken institutions.

Parakala questioned whether the official explanations surrounding SIR adequately addressed the concerns accompanying such an extensive electoral exercise. Referring to public debates on transparency and access to information, he argued that constitutional processes derive legitimacy from both statutory authority and public trust. Wherever opacity overshadows openness, suspicion naturally occupies the space left behind.

A substantial part of his address was devoted to the possible implications of electoral exclusions. His central anxiety was that even if a small proportion of eligible citizens were inadvertently left outside the electoral process, the consequences would extend far beyond election statistics. Universal Adult Franchise is not merely an administrative entitlement, but it is among the most visible expressions of equal citizenship in the Republic. Any process that raises apprehensions regarding inclusion, therefore, deserves the closest constitutional scrutiny.

At this stage, Newton’s second law offered another compelling metaphor. In physics, greater force produces greater acceleration. In constitutional governance, the wider the scope and scale of an institutional intervention, the greater the responsibility to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Whether or not one accepts every inference Parakala drew, his underlying proposition was that large-scale administrative exercises inevitably demand proportionately higher standards of procedural integrity.

Parakala's lecture ultimately transcended the immediate issue of electoral rolls, evolving into a broader reflection on constitutional morality, institutional credibility, and democratic citizenship. His appeal was not directed exclusively at governments or constitutional authorities. Equally, it challenged political parties, civil society, universities, the media, and ordinary citizens to remain attentive to developments that may gradually reshape democratic institutions without attracting proportionate public debate.

Parakala's larger concern extended well beyond the mechanics of electoral revision. For him, SIR represented a point of departure to reflect upon the evolving relationship between the citizen and the State. He repeatedly returned to the foundational values embedded in the Constitution: justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, not as abstract ideals but as practical assurances that every citizen must experience through democratic institutions. His argument, therefore, was less about numbers and more about principles, less about electoral arithmetic and more about preserving public confidence in constitutional processes.

Viewed through Newton's second law, the larger the institutional force exerted upon the democratic process, the greater the obligation to demonstrate fairness, proportionality, and transparency. Parakala's apprehensions and his central proposition deserve thoughtful consideration. Extraordinary administrative interventions must carry an equally extraordinary burden of explanation. Institutions inspire confidence not merely by exercising authority, but by demonstrating that such authority is exercised openly, consistently, and without leaving room for avoidable suspicion.

Parakala consciously differentiated between constitutional scrutiny and partisan contestation. He repeatedly reminded the audience that the right to vote transcends electoral advantage, belonging equally to every eligible citizen, irrespective of political preference, social identity, or ideological persuasion. This, perhaps, was the most enduring takeaway from his lecture. Democracies are strengthened when institutions remain above political contestation and when citizens perceive electoral processes to be impartial, transparent, and universally accessible.

If, as Parakala apprehended, large sections of eligible voters face exclusion, the responsibility to safeguard democratic participation cannot rest solely upon constitutional authorities. Non-BJP governments, opposition parties, civil society organisations, and voluntary citizen forums must remain equally vigilant. They must assist citizens in protecting their electoral rights and ensure democratic participation does not become hostage to procedural complexities. Constitutional democracy survives not by governmental action alone, but through continuous civic engagement.

The deeply personal note on which Parakala commenced his address was touching. His recollection of PV Narasimha Rao transcended public office or political accomplishment. He spoke with warmth about knowing the former Prime Minister closely, recalling conversations, travels, learning moments, and even badminton games that offered an intimate glimpse into one of modern India's most scholarly statesmen. That personal remembrance lent emotional depth to the lecture and served as a fitting tribute to the statesman in whose memory the Endowment Lecture has been instituted.

If Newton's third law teaches that every action inevitably evokes a reaction, democracies too possess corrective mechanisms. The most meaningful reaction need not be confrontation; it can equally be informed participation, public education, and constitutional awareness. Significantly, during the post-lecture interaction, in response to this writer's question regarding the way forward, Parakala did not advocate despair or passive criticism. Instead, he emphatically suggested forming dedicated citizen teams to educate people about the long-term implications of such institutional developments.

Hence, the ball rests simultaneously in several courts: the Election Commission, constitutional courts, Union and State governments, political parties, universities, civil society organisations, the media, and, above all, the vigilant citizen. Whether that ball is visible or deliberately obscured is itself a matter for public scrutiny. Democracies thrive not because difficult questions are avoided, but because they are confronted with reason, transparency, and constitutional fidelity.

Newton's laws have endured for centuries because every generation of scientists examined, tested, and refined humanity's understanding of them. Democracies deserve no less. Constitutional processes must withstand scrutiny, invite correction, and emerge stronger from informed public engagement. If Parakala's lecture serves a lasting purpose, it should not be to deepen political divisions but to stimulate constitutional introspection. His concluding response during the interaction was perhaps the afternoon's most constructive message.

Citizens must organise into informed teams, educate one another about the long-term implications of institutional developments, and participate responsibly in safeguarding democratic processes. That advice transforms anxiety into action. Perhaps the real democratic equivalent of Newton's third law is this: every institutional action should evoke an equal measure of informed civic participation. If that happens, optimism will always prevail over apprehension, constitutional values over transient expediency, and the Republic over every challenge confronting it.