Prof Ram Puniyani
THE Parliament spent two days discussing the Indian Constitution. While the opposition leaders argued that our Constitution has a large space for the enhancement of the rights of weaker sections of society, the religious minorities among others, are suffering terribly. Muslims have been reduced to be second-class citizens. The ruling dispensation, the BJP leaders within the Parliament and its ideologues outside it, argued that all the ills of society and violation of Constitutional values began with Jawaharlal Nehru (Amendment to stop hate speech), via Indira Gandhi (Emergency), via Rajiv Gandhi (Shah Bano Bill) to Rahul Gandhi (tearing the bill) have been the violators of the values of Constitution.
BJP leaders and Hindutva ideologues are stating that the Indian Constitution has been based on Western values, a colonial imprint on our society; it is a break from India’s civilisation and culture. They also argue that the constitution and its application is the appeasement of Muslim minorities for vote-bank purposes exploited by the Congress Party.
We all know that the Constitution was the outcome of the values which emerged during the freedom movement. It also kept in mind the long tradition of our civilisation. The understanding of our civilisation is very different for those who participated in the freedom movement, those who stood for its ideology and those who kept aloof from the anti-colonial movement and bowed to the British rulers. While the freedom movement saw India as a plural nation with rich diversities, those who stood aloof saw the civilisation as Hindu civilisation. For them pluralism is a diversion and imposition by the educated, modern leaders.
Even RSS combine forgets that what they call as Hindu civilisation is undermining the contributions of Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism to our civilisation. Even the interpretation of Lord Ram, their major icon, is so diverse for Kabir, who saw the Lord as Universal spirit, for Gandhi who saw him as protector of all the people irrespective of their religion in his famous: Ishawar Allah Tero Naam (Allah and Ishwar are same). Jawaharlal Nehru saw India, Bharat Mata, in ‘The Discovery of India’, as an “ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously.” With great pride he recalled the rule of Emperor Ashok, who in many edicts itched on stones talked of equal treatment for Vedic Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivikas.
This is the core difference between RSS combine and its ideologues that see India as exclusively Brahmanical Hindu, and those like Gandhi and Nehru as a country belonging to all the people. Indian Constituent Assembly mainly represented the stream which struggled against the British, the national stream, while RSS was a marginal stream sticking to ‘India as Brahmanical Hindu nation’.
This started getting reflected immediately after the draft of the Indian Constitution. While Ambedkar and Nehru were cautious and stated the implementation of its basic structure should be ensured by those ruling the country. Atal Bihari Vajpayee as prime minister formed Venkatchaliah Commission in in 1998 to review the Constitution. Dr KR Narayanan, the then President of India, aptly remarked: “It is not that Constitution that has failed us; it is we who have failed the Constitution! This is so true particularly after the rule of the Narendra Modi Government. It is during this period that though the Constitution has not been changed as such, though many from the RSS camp have expressed their wish to do so, without getting reprimanded from the top leadership. This was most blatantly stated to back up their slogan of 400 Par (More than 400 seats in Parliament), meaning that we want so many seats so that we can change the Constitution.
The blatant rise of hate speech, lately most clearly stated by sitting judge of Allahabad High Court, Shekhar Kumar Yadav, when participating in the VHP’s meeting stated “The country will run as per the wishes of its majority.”
Justice Yadav made the remarks while delivering an address on the Constitutional Necessity of the Uniform Civil Code. “Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” Yadav said.
Worse than his stating so has been the statement of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath who supported Yadav’s utterances. Mercifully the Supreme Court has taken cognisance of Yadav’s communal hate speech. Who will take cognisance of Yogi’s support to him?
Commenting on the current state of affairs senior advocate Aspi Chinoy made a very apt comment. He said: “The BJP being the government at the Centre and having an absolute and overwhelming majority in Parliament, sees no need to alter the de jure status of India as a secular country and constitution. Being in control of the state and its diverse instrumentalities it has been able to achieve its goal of undermining India’s secular Constitution and introduce a Hindutva-based ethnocracy, even without amending and altering the de jure secular status,”
This sectarianism of the ruling BJP goes back to the time when the draft of the Constitution was released. A couple of days later the RSS mouthpiece (unofficial) Organiser stated on 30th November 1949: “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Meaning that Manusmriti has been ignored by the makers of the Indian Constitution!
The father of Hindu nationalist politics, VD Savarkar was quoted by Rahul Gandhi while participating in the Lok Sabha debate, “The worst thing about the Constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable after Vedas for our Hindu nation and from which our ancient times have become the basis for our culture, customs, thought and practice.”
The crux of the matter comes to the surface when we compare the chief of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution Ambedkar and one of the RSS Sarsanghchalk, K Sudarshan. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmiriti and drafted the Indian Constitution. RSS chief went on to label Indian Constitution as being based on Western values and the need to bring the Indian Constitution based on the Indian holy book!
——–
Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and former professor at IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
