Thread by @gautambhatia88

Ambedkar defined constitutional morality as a "paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution." What separates a constitutional republic from brute majoritarianism is that in the former, the ends do not justify the means, and the means are as sacred. (1/4)

So if you view constitutional processes as dispensable the moment government is doing something "good", that's a bit like saying "you have freedom of speech as long as you agree with me." Both the Constitution and free speech are essentially meaningless. (2/4)

It has been difficult to watch so many people cast aside these principles so easily to justify #370, but then again, constitutional process is an abstract concept. It's value is hard to communicate. And clearly we haven't done a good enough job of communicating it. (3/4)

But then again, I'm not sure how to communicate it. Because it seems to me that that this is one of those things whose meaning you only truly realise after you have lost it.

Should keep trying, though. Generations change in surprising ways, some times. (4/4)