But when the people of India and the people of the US gained their freedom, they designed liberal representative democracies that put freedom of conscience and self-rule above all else. Our peoples both entered into a social contract with one another that said they would be governed by the same set of rules. They agreed to rules-based systems that would be created by democratically elected representatives, enforced by accountable administrations, and interpreted by independent judiciaries.
Their choices were not surprising. The American Revolution was steeped in the quest for liberty from tyranny. Our founding fathers sought a government that would be run by the people and for the people. American founding father Patrick Henry expressed this when he exclaimed "give me liberty or give me death!"
Also Read
Over 100 years later, Lokmanya Tilak's declaration that "Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it" was a siren call for all in India who sought to end British rule. And as India's freedom came at midnight in 1947, Nehru reflected that her "soul, long suppressed" had found "its utterance."
The similar histories of our founding eras make it clear that our societies are two that reject totalitarianism or authoritarianism in favour of giving every part of society a voice in government. One way we exercise that voice is through elections. But democracy is about so much more than elections. It is also about constantly pushing our governments toward a better, more just, more enlightened expression of our values. To get there, free societies must engage in a constant and deliberate debate on topics of public concern. We cannot avoid the hard questions in the name of political expediency.
For instance, communities in every part of the US are engaged in a conversation today about race, law enforcement and the socio-economic conditions that have caused too many neighbourhoods to erupt in protest, which sometimes turns violent. If we seek to improve the fabric of our nation, we must be willing to engage in a vigorous exchange about our values, their meaning and the direction of our communities.
This belief in the value of debate about the direction of our societies is another democratic principle that we share. It is also one that our founders recognised. In America, the drafters of our constitution explicitly limited our government's power to regulate freedom of expression in its many forms, including religion, speech, and association. In India, Dr (B R) Ambedkar did similarly, calling for "Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship" in your Constitution's Preamble.
The Mission is currently hosting an exhibition called Kindred Nations at the American Center. This excellent display examines the many personal linkages between the US and India between 1783 and 1947. I bring the Kindred Nations exhibit up now because one of the photographs that struck me was of Henry David Thoreau, the American author and philosopher. According to the photo's inscription, Thoreau had read the Bhagavad Gita at Walden Pond, where he also wrote his most famous work. According to the inscription, another of Thoreau's works - his essay on civil disobedience - was one of the inspirations for Mahatma Gandhi's passive resistance campaigns.
Civil disobedience explains why Thoreau could not support a US government that allowed slavery. Because government is a thing created by its citizens, he argued, the citizenry should be free to argue against laws deemed unjust and to disobey their enforcement by the government it created.
Depending on how much of a student of political theory or philosophy you are, you might find it amusing that a government official, and particularly an ambassador, would stand before you quoting this particular essay. I do so because like Thoreau, I believe in the inalienable right of citizens in a democratic society to argue peacefully for a government they believe is more just, more moral and more reflective of their individual beliefs. This is the same right that found a manifestation in Gandhiji's satyagrahas in Africa and India. It was a right demonstrated by Martin Luther King as he fought against the injustices of segregation. It is a right still exercised in front of the White House and Capitol building in Washington DC. And it is a right still faithfully, regularly, and wonderfully expressed across India today.
But Thoreau also recognised that his will to dissent would not be so strong against injustices lesser than slavery. But the lack of a great injustice against which to fight does not mean that the quest for a better union has ended. There are always things that must and should change. Whether it is by changing laws or policies, challenging them in court, or by strengthening their enforcement, those that act peacefully to seek change are not anti-government. They are for better government. By seeking to improve government, they strengthen national security, not weaken it.
In today's world, a great deal of the search for the refinements that can improve our governments is undertaken by civil society organisations. They are fighting peacefully around the world for advances in health, inclusive economic growth, environmental protections, human rights and to strengthen democracy.
That is why President (Barack) Obama convened members of the international community on the margins of the UN General Assembly in 2013 to launch the Stand with Civil Society Agenda.
Both of our countries are home to vibrant and vocal civil society organisations seeking change in every conceivable area. India is home to a vibrant community of over two million legally registered non-governmental organisations. The US also has a robust civil society community, though I doubt the number is two million. With so many voices engaged in the debate, there are sure to be some whose views others find objectionable. That is part of the beauty of the vibrant, thriving democracies we have chosen.