When Institutions Are Communalised, Society Itself Is Put at Risk
Mushtaq Bala
There are moments in a nation’s journey when the warning signs are too stark to ignore. One such sign is the creeping communalisation of public institutions — a trend that may appear political on the surface but strikes at the very heart of society.
Institutions are meant to be neutral pillars that offer stability beyond the turbulence of politics. They carry the immense responsibility of assuring every citizen that justice will be fair, opportunities equal, and public services unbiased. But when these institutions begin to reflect communal preferences, prejudiced appointments, or identity-driven agendas, the damage runs far deeper than political rivalry.
Communalisation does not merely skew governance — it fractures trust.
Once people believe that the system favours one community over another, the emotional compact between citizen and state begins to dissolve. Minorities feel vulnerable. Majorities feel entitled. And division becomes the new organising principle of society. This is how social fabrics unravel: not in dramatic collapses, but through a slow corrosion of faith in the institutions meant to protect everyone.
History shows us that nations do not disintegrate from the margins — they crack at the centre. And the centre of any democracy is its institutions.
Politicising them is dangerous; communalising them is catastrophic.
Responsible leadership must resist the temptation to use identity as a tool of governance. Short-term political gains cannot justify long-term societal wounds. The neutrality of institutions is not an abstract ideal — it is the foundation on which peaceful coexistence stands.
To protect that foundation, we must insist on transparency, merit, accountability, and constitutional values in every public institution. Neutrality is not optional; it is essential.
Communalising institutions divides society at its core. Defending their neutrality is, today, not just a governance issue but a moral imperative — the difference between a nation that progresses and one that polarises itself into paralysis.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and not that of Straight Talk Communications)
