Does BJP recognise that Constitution was the outcome of values that emerged during the freedom movement?
The Indian Parliament spent two days discussing the Indian Constitution. While opposition leaders argued that our Constitution has ample space for enhancing the rights of weaker sections of society, including religious minorities, they are suffering terribly. Muslims have been reduced to second-class citizens. The ruling dispensation, the BJP leaders within Parliament and its ideologues outside, argued that all the ills of society and violations of Constitutional values began with Nehru (Amendment to stop hate speech), continued with Indira Gandhi (Emergency), Rajiv Gandhi (Shah Bano Bill), and culminated with Rahul Gandhi (tearing the bill), all of whom they accused of violating the Constitution's values.
BJP leaders and Hindu nationalist ideologues claim that the Indian Constitution is based on Western values, a colonial imprint on our society; it is a break from India's civilization and culture. They also argue that the Constitution and its application have been used for the appeasement of Muslim minorities for vote bank purposes by the Congress Party.
As we know, the Constitution was the outcome of the values that emerged during the freedom movement. It also considered the long tradition of our civilization. However, the understanding of our civilization differs significantly between those who participated in the freedom movement, those who uphold its ideology, and those who remained aloof from the anti-colonial movement and submitted to British rule. While the freedom movement envisioned India as a plural nation with rich diversities, those who stood aloof saw the civilization as Hindu civilization. For them, pluralism is a diversion and an imposition by the educated, modern leaders.
Even the RSS combine forgets that what they call Hindu civilization undermines the contributions of Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism to our civilization. Even the interpretation of Lord Ram, their major icon, varies significantly. Kabir saw the Lord as the Universal spirit, Gandhi saw Him as the protector of all people regardless of their religion, as reflected in his famous saying: "Ishawar Allah Tero Naam" (Allah and Iswar are the same). Jawaharlal Nehru, in "The Discovery of India," saw India, Bharat Mata, 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 Ashoka, who in many edicts inscribed on stones, spoke of equal treatment for Vedic Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Ajivikas.
This is the core difference between the RSS combine and its ideologues, who view India as exclusively Brahmanical Hindu, and those like Gandhi and Nehru, who see it as a country belonging to all its people. The Indian Constituent Assembly primarily represented the stream that struggled against the British, the national stream, while the RSS was a marginal stream clinging to the idea of "India as a Brahmanical Hindu nation." This began to reflect immediately after the draft of the Indian Constitution. While Ambedkar and Nehru were cautious and emphasized that the implementation of its basic structure should be ensured by those ruling the country, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in 1998, formed the Venkatchaliah Commission to review the Constitution. Dr. K.R. Narayanan, then President of India, aptly remarked, "It is not that the Constitution has failed us; it is we who have failed the Constitution!" This is particularly true after the rule of the Modi Government. Although the Constitution has not been formally changed, many from the RSS camp have expressed their desire to do so, without reprimand from the top leadership. This was most blatantly stated to back up their slogan of "400 Par" (More than 400 seats in Parliament), meaning they want so many seats to change the Constitution.
The blatant rise of hate speech, most clearly stated recently by sitting Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, during a VHP meeting, where he declared, "The country will run as per the wishes of its majority." Justice Yadav made these remarks while addressing the "Constitutional Necessity of Uniform Civil Code." "Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted," Yadav said.
Worse than his statement was the support it received from Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Mercifully, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of Yadav's communal hate speech. Who will take cognizance of Yogi's support for him?
Commenting on the current state of affairs, Justice Aspi Chinoy made a very apt comment: "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 few days later, the RSS mouthpiece (unofficial) Organiser stated on November 30, 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, V.D. Savarkar, was quoted by Rahul Gandhi during a parliamentary 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." Stating that Manusmriti is the law today.
The crux of the matter comes to the surface when we compare the chief of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar, and one of the RSS Sarsanghchalaks, K. Sudarshan. Ambedkar burned the Manusmriti and drafted the Indian Constitution. The RSS Chief went on to label the Indian Constitution as being based on Western Values and the need to bring the Indian Constitution in line with Indian Holy books!
---
*Political commentator
Comments