November 29, 2024 04:25 IST
First published: November 29, 2024 04:25 IST
-
share
Speaking in the Supreme Court on Constitution Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the Constitution is “a living, ever-flowing stream” that reflects “the aspirations of a vibrant and developed nation”. He further added, “It is not just a lawyer’s document but a soul; A spirit of the era.” However, sometimes it seems that some people from the Hindutva group do not agree with the Prime Minister’s views. They believe that the Constitution is a colonial legacy and it breaks our ties with the civilizational heritage of the country. Is.
In 1966, MS Golwalkar wrote that there was “nothing in the Constitution that can be called ours”. However, speaking on Hindutva and national unity on February 7, 2022, the current RSS chief said, “Hindutva is nothing but the true reflection of the Indian Constitution.” This seems to be either a deliberate policy of speaking in multiple and contradictory voices or a genuine delusion about the real value of our Constitution.
To say that the framers of the Constitution thought of India only as a nation-state and weakened its civilizational identity is factually incorrect. Our civilization was repeatedly mentioned in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly. For example, while supporting Nehru’s Objective Resolution – the guiding principles that helped India’s Constituent Assembly draft the Constitution – Krishna Sinha criticized the nation versus civilization binary. He said, “An Indian nation has emerged in India with Indian culture and Indian civilization.”
Critics should, at least, acknowledge the views of Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mukherjee, who also supported the Objectives Resolution. “After all, we are not sitting here in our individual capacity but we claim to represent the people of this great land,” he said. Our sanction is not the British Parliament, our sanction is not the British Government; Our approval is from the people of India.”
In fact, while moving the Objectives Resolution on December 13, 1946, Nehru recalled the great “civilizational journey” of 5,000 years. He described it as the moment of transition from the old to the new, when this “ancient land” would regain its rightful and honored place. Purushottam Das Tandon mentioned ancient meetings in which pundits used to discuss important matters. He also talked about protecting civilization as well as moving forward.
The claim that the Constitution has no intrinsic value and that decolonization is essential to prevent the destruction of what remains of “India’s indigeneity” is widespread. For some such critics of the Constitution, indigenous identity means Aryan identity, not tribal identity. Jaspal Singh, who represented the tribals in the Constituent Assembly, asserted, “The tribals are the original inhabitants of India and the Aryans were infiltrators.” He said that the objective resolution cannot teach the tribals as they have been following democracy for centuries.
A section of critics of the Constitution want to be seen as the protectors of Indian civilization and oppose constitutionalism, secularism, socialism and individualism. they oppose it Sabarimala Judgment (2017) for reliance on constitutional morality. But then, was Ashoka’s Dhamma not a kind of constitutional morality, and not a state-sponsored religion? Doesn’t the word dharma mean righteousness rather than any religion? In 1944, the Hindu Mahasabha created the Constitution of the Hindustan Free State. Twenty years ago, the Constitution of the Irish Free State came into force. Are there no similarities in names? Article 8(15) of the Constitution of the General Assembly declares that there shall be no State religion. Secularism was perhaps more clearly enshrined in the Hindu right’s constitution than in the country’s constitution.
MR Masani outlined the central issue before the Constituent Assembly: should the state own the people or should the people own the state? He said, “In our democracy, people will neither be slaves of capitalism, nor of any party or state. Man shall be free” India adopted British parliamentary democracy but instead of a hereditary head of state, the country became a republic with an elected head of state. When borrowing the Fundamental Rights from America, the Constitution’s framers included restrictions in the text itself. The American principle of “due process” was rejected. Unlike other unions, our governors are nominated by the Center and not elected by the people and we have opted for separation of functions rather than separation of powers. Is the idea of separation of powers not fundamentally a part of the Lakshman Rekha ethos of Indian civilization?
In our ancient assemblies there were no direct elections on the basis of universal adult franchise. India had a caste system that undermined equality, freedom and individual dignity. In the Constituent Assembly, Hansa Mehta spoke at length on the unequal status of women in ancient India. We borrowed individualism from the West because of our free choice.
A constitution sets the agenda for the future. It should look forward, not backward. Learning from the past is a good thing but an uncritical approach towards the past and a desire to revive the values of the past is fundamentalism. We are truly proud of our glorious civilization that gave birth to the idea of India which underpins the protection and preservation of diversity, tolerance and acceptance. If the whole world is our family, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, then we are entitled to adopt ideas from anywhere.
The author teaches constitutional law and is the Vice Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. thoughts are personal