Former President Shankar Dayal Sharma once tellingly remarked that it is the “ideals, goals and values of the freedom struggle (that) form the real essence, the life breath of our Constitution”. In crafting the idea of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, BR Ambedkar, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad, among numerous other stalwarts of the Constituent Assembly, ensured that the Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedoms of speech, expression, religion, and, most of all, the right to live with human dignity.
Our founding fathers and mothers firmly believed that governments – and hence people – cannot differentiate between communities on grounds of their religion, caste, gender or birth. They posited that a government must respect, protect and further the collective aspirations of each of these, while preserving India’s pluralism. In fact, this has been so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness that we implicitly trust our government to defend the idea of India, and to uphold equality, justice and freedom.
So when a government does otherwise, it’s deeply troubling. In the past few months, India has witnessed an alarming rise in attacks against minorities, over 600 cases of violence (406 targeting Muslims, the rest against Christians) have occurred between May 2014 and May 2015. In the last five months, countless such instances have been recorded with lynchings in Dadri, Udhampur, and Uchekon Moiba Thongkhong being just the most prominent. We have seen people being murdered for nothing more than “offensive” comments on social media, and for transporting beef. Similarly, atrocities against Dalits have registered a 19% increase (47,064 cases in 2014, a majority after May). Again, 2015 has seen horrific caste atrocities in Faridabad, in Ahmednagar and in various places across India.
The section of civil society and the political opposition that have raised their voices against intolerance have argued that a) the National Democratic Alliance government has been a mute witness to these atrocities, and b) that in doing so, it has betrayed our trust. There is a strong sense that the Sangh parivar has engineered – directly or indirectly – these crimes. Whether this is true or not, what’s pertinent is that people believe there is a tacit acceptance, even endorsement, of these crimes by our government. Any conscientious citizen would rightly ask: Is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is sworn to uphold the Constitution, sympathetic to these schemes to tear apart the fabric of this nation? If it isn’t, why does it not take firm action against the Sangh which clearly operates on a set of primordial laws that are antithetical to constitutional principles, but also threaten the multi-cultural integrity of India?
In black and white
In probing this question, we must look to the Sangh’s chief ideologue MS Golwalkar, whom Prime Minister Narendra Modi idolises so much that he even penned his biography in 2010 (Shree Guru ji: Ek Swayamsevak). In three separate books, which the Sangh and the BJP treat as gospels, Golwalkar tears into the idea of India. Denigrating our Constitution (in Bunch of Thoughts), he asks:
He then goes on to contend (in We: Our Nationhood Defined):
Finally, Golwalkar posits (in Why Hindu Rashtra?):
Shockingly, he then preaches to his followers, in typical fascist style, that non Hindus in India can “claim nothing, deserve no privileges, far less any preferential treatment- not even citizen’s rights”.
Consequently, two articles in RSS’ Organiser (on 30th November, 1949 and 25th January 1950) demanded that instead of the Constitution, the Manumsriti be enacted as the law of the land. This is the same document that Ambedkar publicly burnt, because it prescribes that:
1. Women are an embodiment of the worst desires, hatred, deceit, jealousy and bad character. Women should never be given freedom (IX-17 and V-47 & 147).
2. The Lord has prescribed only one occupation for the Shudra, to serve meekly the other three castes (I, 91).
3. Killing a woman, a Shudra or an atheist is not sinful (IX-17 and V-47 & 147).
4. If the Shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda then his ears should be filled with molten lead and lac (III-4).
Similarly, VD Savarkar (another Sangh ideologue) rejected India’s national flag which the Constituent Assembly approved on July 29, 1947 arguing:
In the past, India has been blessed with leaders of outstanding moral fibre who have steadfastly safeguarded and strengthened the idea of India. However, is that idea for which Gandhi died really inviolate under our current political leadership? Is the promise of this country accorded to all people, regardless of their religion, caste, gender, birth or ideological inclination? And if it isn’t, isn’t our collective consciousness deeply troubled by the selectivity?
This Constitution Day therefore provides us with the perfect opportunity to reflect on who we are, and what kind of society we want to be. As Ambedkar once said:
Pushparaj Deshpande is currently an analyst with the Congress Party. He has worked on legislation and policy with PRS Legislative Research, Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (a Congress think tank), Rajya Sabha TV, Cicero Associates and various Members of Parliament.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Our founding fathers and mothers firmly believed that governments – and hence people – cannot differentiate between communities on grounds of their religion, caste, gender or birth. They posited that a government must respect, protect and further the collective aspirations of each of these, while preserving India’s pluralism. In fact, this has been so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness that we implicitly trust our government to defend the idea of India, and to uphold equality, justice and freedom.
So when a government does otherwise, it’s deeply troubling. In the past few months, India has witnessed an alarming rise in attacks against minorities, over 600 cases of violence (406 targeting Muslims, the rest against Christians) have occurred between May 2014 and May 2015. In the last five months, countless such instances have been recorded with lynchings in Dadri, Udhampur, and Uchekon Moiba Thongkhong being just the most prominent. We have seen people being murdered for nothing more than “offensive” comments on social media, and for transporting beef. Similarly, atrocities against Dalits have registered a 19% increase (47,064 cases in 2014, a majority after May). Again, 2015 has seen horrific caste atrocities in Faridabad, in Ahmednagar and in various places across India.
The section of civil society and the political opposition that have raised their voices against intolerance have argued that a) the National Democratic Alliance government has been a mute witness to these atrocities, and b) that in doing so, it has betrayed our trust. There is a strong sense that the Sangh parivar has engineered – directly or indirectly – these crimes. Whether this is true or not, what’s pertinent is that people believe there is a tacit acceptance, even endorsement, of these crimes by our government. Any conscientious citizen would rightly ask: Is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is sworn to uphold the Constitution, sympathetic to these schemes to tear apart the fabric of this nation? If it isn’t, why does it not take firm action against the Sangh which clearly operates on a set of primordial laws that are antithetical to constitutional principles, but also threaten the multi-cultural integrity of India?
In black and white
In probing this question, we must look to the Sangh’s chief ideologue MS Golwalkar, whom Prime Minister Narendra Modi idolises so much that he even penned his biography in 2010 (Shree Guru ji: Ek Swayamsevak). In three separate books, which the Sangh and the BJP treat as gospels, Golwalkar tears into the idea of India. Denigrating our Constitution (in Bunch of Thoughts), he asks:
“Is there a single word…in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is?”
He then goes on to contend (in We: Our Nationhood Defined):
“The idea was spread [by the Congress Party] that for the first time the people were going to live a ‘national life’. The nation…naturally was composed of all those who happened to reside therein and that all these people were to unite on a common ‘national’ platform…we began to class ourselves with our old invaders and foes [read Muslims, Christians & all minorities] under the outlandish name – Indian…The result of this poison is too well known. We have allowed ourselves to be duped into believing our foes to be our friends and…are undermining true nationality”.
Finally, Golwalkar posits (in Why Hindu Rashtra?):
“Unfortunately…our Constitution has…given equal rights to everybody, just as a person without understanding may give equal rights to his children and to the thieves in his house and distribute the property among all”.
Shockingly, he then preaches to his followers, in typical fascist style, that non Hindus in India can “claim nothing, deserve no privileges, far less any preferential treatment- not even citizen’s rights”.
Consequently, two articles in RSS’ Organiser (on 30th November, 1949 and 25th January 1950) demanded that instead of the Constitution, the Manumsriti be enacted as the law of the land. This is the same document that Ambedkar publicly burnt, because it prescribes that:
1. Women are an embodiment of the worst desires, hatred, deceit, jealousy and bad character. Women should never be given freedom (IX-17 and V-47 & 147).
2. The Lord has prescribed only one occupation for the Shudra, to serve meekly the other three castes (I, 91).
3. Killing a woman, a Shudra or an atheist is not sinful (IX-17 and V-47 & 147).
4. If the Shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda then his ears should be filled with molten lead and lac (III-4).
Similarly, VD Savarkar (another Sangh ideologue) rejected India’s national flag which the Constituent Assembly approved on July 29, 1947 arguing:
“It can never be recognised as the national flag... the authoritative flag of Hindusthan…can be no other than the bhagava (saffron flag)…and we (Sangh) “can loyally salute no other flag”. Sardar Patel, repulsed by the Sangh’s anti-national character banned it arguing: “the RSS… (is) indulging in…subversive activities (and it’s)… activities…constitute a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State…”
In the past, India has been blessed with leaders of outstanding moral fibre who have steadfastly safeguarded and strengthened the idea of India. However, is that idea for which Gandhi died really inviolate under our current political leadership? Is the promise of this country accorded to all people, regardless of their religion, caste, gender, birth or ideological inclination? And if it isn’t, isn’t our collective consciousness deeply troubled by the selectivity?
This Constitution Day therefore provides us with the perfect opportunity to reflect on who we are, and what kind of society we want to be. As Ambedkar once said:
“If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path…nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country”.
Pushparaj Deshpande is currently an analyst with the Congress Party. He has worked on legislation and policy with PRS Legislative Research, Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (a Congress think tank), Rajya Sabha TV, Cicero Associates and various Members of Parliament.
