Skip to main content

Right-wing ideologues' new assertion: There's 'nothing Indian' about Constitution

There was a time when we used to reject the Indian Constitution as "bourgeois". Those were the student days of early 1970s. Vigorous, youthful, though controversial. At that time, I used to be part of the Students Federation of India (SFI), CPI-M's student wing. We were told to believe by Delhi University party ideologues that the Constitution served the bourgeois-landlord state, led by the big bourgeoisie, which was in alliance with the imperialists.
I don't know about others, but surely, I didn't understand much of it. Everything, including Premchand's novels, would be seen within that framework. One of the ideologues, Sudhish Panchari, truly an incisive Hindi critic, I recall, said how should one see “Godan” within the framework of "bourgeois-land government led by big bourgeoisie" (he was quoting CPI-M Programme) addressing a seminar in Jamia Millia Islamia.
I would take it all with a pinch of salt, but had no idea how to question it. At that time we hadn't read (even less understood) Dr BR Ambedkar on how he had played a pivotal role in coming up with India's Constitution. All that we were supposed to know was, Ambedkar, like Nehru or Sardar, supposedly played in the hands of the ruling classes. To Ambedkar, we were made to believe, caste struggle was more important. And, as caste conflict divided the proletariat and eroded class struggle, Ambedkar ought to be rejected.
I am reminded of this (and more) when I find today's CPI-M leaders, who were my contemporaries in SFI in 1970s (not excluding current party general secretary Sitaram Yechury, or his predecessor, and "rival", Prakash Karat), valiantly defending the Constitution, arguing out how it is sought to be undermined by the present BJP rulers through the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The very same Left leaders' followers in the Jawaharlal Nahru University (JNU) are currently found keeping high the spirit of the Constitution and the tricolour (and not the red flag, as was the case in early 1970s) against an alleged Right-wing onslaught, which is challenging not just the "Constitutional values" of equality before law by favouring Hindu majoritarianism, even as seeking to reduce the minorities into second class citizens.
Reflecting Ambedkar?
They are also opposing the saffron rulers' assault, often violent, on anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protesters, leading to the death of at least two dozen people, pointing towards how the clampdown is against the Constitutional provisions relate to freedom of speech and association, and how Section 144 prohibitory orders are imposed anywhere and everywhere to facilitate the clampdown.
Interesting, if in early 1970s it was the Left, as I knew it, which had sought to reject the Constitution, dubbing it "bourgeois", now things seem to come full circle: Surely, right-wing leaders -- Narendra Modi and Amit Shah -- haven't yet come out in the open, questioning the Constitution. But his die-hard followers surely have.
Considered by a section of by saffronites "a leading thinker on constitutional matters", R Jagannathan, currently editor, "Swarajya Magazine", called the "conscience keeper" of the right, from all appearances, is certainly not that.
This senior, and perhaps one of the best Right-wing journalists, who is more at ease when he focuses on economy -- he has held senior positions in "Forbes India", "Financial Express" and "Business Today" before joining the news portal "First Post" as its editor -- has triggered Horner's nest by declaring the need to throw out whatever is not India (I think he meant Hindutva) in the Constitution.
Reacting to a recent tweet -- which said, "A decade or so ago read the Constituent Assembly debates with great awe. Redoing it now. Frankly looks like they were a confused lot to me now. We deserved better ideas and debates" -- Jagannathan asserts, "Absolutely. It is time we told it like it is. Our Constitution is a huge tome of contradictory things and borrowed ideas focusing less on principles and broad approaches. There is nothing Indian about it."
No sooner I saw the tweet, I recalled a lecture by one of India's foremost veteran Constitutional experts, Upendra Baxi, who, while addressing an august audience in Ahmedabad, talked of what he called "foolish excellence" in the context of the Indian Constitution. Baxi's lecture, even as demanding unusual academic erudition from the audience -- it contained umpteen number of references -- appeared, at least to me, to question mark exactly what the Left had just refused to.
I am not sure, what Baxi said would sound music to Jagannathan and others in the Right-wing, who have now discovered that the Constitution should be overhauled because there is very little Indianness (sic!) in it. Also, I don't know if the Left would at least now see a major deficiency Baxi appears to have identified in India's Constitution -- of neglecting human rights and social justice.
Be that as it may, Baxi suggested, the constitutional idea of India enunciated by the Constituent Assembly tried to revolve around four key concepts -- governance, development, rights and justice. However, he insisted, 90% of the emphasis in the Constitution was on governance and development, while only 10% was on human rights and justice.
Titled "The Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Duties of Citizens, and Human Rights: Fools Rush in Where Angels Fear to Tread", Baxi sought to "suggest" during the 45-minute lecture that India's constitution-making "preceded at least by six decades of the Indian freedom struggle", which ushered in a new India, "an era of foolish excellence."
Wondering as to why human rights and justice are mainly a part of the Directive Principles of the State Policy, which are legally not enforceable but are merely a moral binding, Baxi indicated, very few duties related to human rights and social justice have been made legally obligatory for the state in the Directive Principles, one of them being making the Right to Education (RTE) compulsory, which, by the way, is a more recent development (2009).
Searching on the web, I found that, a little less than four years ago, Jagannathan appeared to consider human rights and social justice as needing more importance in the Constitution than hitherto has been the case, even though, not unexpectedly, he also wanted to throw away a lot of things he seemed to consider as not giving justice Hindus. Interestingly, in this 2016 article, he does not utter a single word about the Constitution’s supposed non-Indianness.
Defending Dr BR Ambedkar (Jagannathan gave full marks to Ambedkar, stating, "Ambedkar would probably not recognise the constitution we have now”, as it has been “constantly” tinkered with populist reasons, hence it has been “beaten … out of shape"), ironically, in the article, he insisted that the "first and foremost change that needs to be made is to make fundamental rights stronger."
According to him, "We did the opposite. We have whittled down rights repeatedly, starting with Jawaharlal Nehru’s first amendment to curtail free speech, by inserting needless restrictions to it." The eight "limits" to free speech prescribed by the first amendment include, he said, are "security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."
"At least four or five of these restrictions are redundant: barring sedition, contempt of court, or incitement to violence, most of the remaining restrictions can go", he said, adding, one of the fundamental rights that needs restoration is the right to properly, taken away by the Janata Party government in 1978. In 2016, he also wanted to "protect the fundamental rights of citizens with different personal preferences", junking Section 377 of IPC, "which criminalises gay sex" -- which is surely not an "Indian" view.

Comments

TRENDING

Dalit rights and political tensions: Why is Mevani at odds with Congress leadership?

While I have known Jignesh Mevani, one of the dozen-odd Congress MLAs from Gujarat, ever since my Gandhinagar days—when he was a young activist aligned with well-known human rights lawyer Mukul Sinha’s organisation, Jan Sangharsh Manch—he became famous following the July 2016 Una Dalit atrocity, in which seven members of a family were brutally assaulted by self-proclaimed cow vigilantes while skinning a dead cow, a traditional occupation among Dalits.  

Powering pollution, heating homes: Why are Delhi residents opposing incineration-based waste management

While going through the 50-odd-page report Burning Waste, Warming Cities? Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Incineration and Urban Heat in Delhi , authored by Chythenyen Devika Kulasekaran of the well-known advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability, I came across a reference to Sukhdev Vihar — a place where I lived for almost a decade before moving to Moscow in 1986 as the foreign correspondent of the daily Patriot and weekly Link .

Boeing 787 under scrutiny again after Ahmedabad crash: Whistleblower warnings resurface

A heart-wrenching tragedy has taken place in Ahmedabad. As widely reported, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane crashed shortly after taking off from the city’s airport, currently operated by India’s top tycoon, Gautam Adani. The aircraft was carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members.  As expected, the crash has led to an outpouring of grief across the country. At the same time, there have been demands for the resignation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and the Civil Aviation Minister.

Ahmedabad's civic chaos: Drainage woes, waterlogging, and the illusion of Olympic dreams

In response to my blog on overflowing gutter lines at several spots in Ahmedabad's Vejalpur, a heavily populated area, a close acquaintance informed me that it's not just the middle-class housing societies that are affected by the nuisance. Preeti Das, who lives in a posh locality in what is fashionably called the SoBo area, tells me, "Things are worse in our society, Applewood."

Global NGO slams India for media clampdown during conflict, downplays Pakistan

A global civil rights group, Civicus has taken strong exception to how critical commentaries during the “recent conflict” with Pakistan were censored in India, with journalists getting “targeted”. I have no quarrel with the Civicus view, as the facts mentioned in it are all true.

Whither SCOPE? Twelve years on, Gujarat’s official English remains frozen in time

While writing my previous blog on how and why Narendra Modi went out of his way to promote English when he was Gujarat chief minister — despite opposition from people in the Sangh Parivar — I came across an interesting write-up by Aakar Patel, a well-known name among journalists and civil society circles.

Remembering Vijay Rupani: A quiet BJP leader who listened beyond party lines

Late evening on June 12, a senior sociologist of Indian origin, who lives in Vienna, asked me a pointed question: Of the 241 persons who died as a result of the devastating plane crash in Ahmedabad the other day, did I know anyone? I had no hesitation in telling her: former Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani, whom I described to her as "one of the more sensible persons in the BJP leadership."

A conman, a demolition man: How 'prominent' scribes are defending Pritish Nandy

How to defend Pritish Nandy? That’s the big question some of his so-called fans seem to ponder, especially amidst sharp criticism of his alleged insensitivity during his journalistic career. One such incident involved the theft and publication of the birth certificate of Masaba Gupta, daughter of actor Neena Gupta, in the Illustrated Weekly of India, which Nandy was editing at the time. He reportedly did this to uncover the identity of Masaba’s father.

Why India’s renewable energy sector struggles under 2,735 compliance hurdles

Recently, during a conversation with an industry representative, I was told how easy it is to set up a startup in Singapore compared to India. This gentleman, who had recently visited Singapore, explained that one of the key reasons Indians living in the Southeast Asian nation prefer establishing startups there is because the government is “extremely supportive” when it comes to obtaining clearances. “They don’t want to shift operations to India due to the large number of bureaucratic hurdles,” he remarked.