INDIA’s journey from a feudal society to a modern, democratic one based on equality began during the colonial era. That’s when modern industries emerged, giving rise to a working-class movement. Lord Macaulay’s education initiatives laid the groundwork for a liberal, open society with an inherent concept of rights. In feudal and semi-feudal societies, the idea of common people’s rights didn’t exist; instead, the ruling class held “divine” authority.
As this era unfolded, forces emerged that expressed the rights of rising social classes. The independence movement against colonial rule was led by leaders steeped in democratic values – Sardar Patel, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Subhas Chandra Bose. They championed values that inherently included people’s rights, participating in the movement and making significant personal sacrifices.
Take Jyotirao Phule, inspired by Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man,” or Babasaheb Ambedkar, a strong follower of John Dewey’s democratic values. These influences shaped India’s path toward a modern, democratic society.
Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticised Lord Macaulay’s emphasis on rights, advocating for traditional knowledge systems and prioritising duties over rights. Modi’s Hindutva ideology and Muslim League glorify ancient times, emphasising duties (dharma) as central. This perspective aligns with feudal values, viewing lower classes as inferior.
The Muslim League emerged from the Nawabs/ Landlords and their leaders eulogised the great rule of Muslim kings, starting from Mohammad bin Qasim who ruled for some time in Sindh. Their model too was based on feudal values and the dominant sections were blessed with the ‘divine power’. Pakistan saw the good definition of secularism by Jinnah, but in practice the feudal elements were dominant around him and after Jinnah’s death they came out openly to impose their feudal/semi-feudal values on society.
As Hindu nationalism surges, the concept of ‘rights’ inherent in our national movement and Constitution have to be gradually undermined by Hindutva politics. This is where the non-biological Narendra Modi begins the journey to achieve the goal of undermining rights and highlighting duties. Call for a dumping education system introduced by Lord Macaulay was a subtle attempt in this direction. Now putting it more overtly on the Constitution Day (26 November), Modi stressed citizens’ fundamental duties, linking them to a strong democracy and the country’s development. Critics argue this undermines rights, citing constitutional experts who say duties shouldn’t supersede rights. Gandhi’s philosophy is often misinterpreted on this point; he saw duties as moral guidance, not replacing rights.
Modi’s invocation of Gandhi is totally off the mark as Prof Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita at Jawaharlal Nehru University, political scientist, writer and commentator, says: “Gandhi often spoke of duties, but he never treated them as a substitute for rights; duties did not supersede rights. For him, duties were a moral path for individuals, while Fundamental Rights remained essential and must be protected by the state. Gandhi’s commitment to duties did not diminish rights in any way,”
Hindu nationalism restricts religious freedom, expression, and other rights, aligning with authoritarian tendencies. Modi’s emphasis on duties over rights echoes authoritarian constitutions, raising concerns about minority rights and intellectual freedom.
Modi’s views contrast with India’s constitutional values, which prioritise rights. The Constitution emphasises rights, such as the right to life (Article 21), education, and health. The UPA government (2004-2014) implemented rights-based policies, including the Right to Information, Education, Food, and Health.
______________
Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and a former professor at IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are author’s personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
