On the 125th birth anniversary of Indian Constitution’s key architect Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the Modi government decided to celebrate the nation’s commitment to the hallowed rulebook that delineated the limits of national conduct.
Ostensibly, it seemed to be an honest idea to spread the immense significance of constitutional edicts in a society, which has been rather indifferent to issues concerning citizenry’s fundamental rights and obligations. But by projecting himself as a fierce defender of the Indian constitution, which Jawaharlal Nehru once described as a written statement of national philosophy, an astute Modi has once again proved his unquestionable talent in usurping past legacies for political expediency.
Ironically, Modi is desperately trying to worm his way into mainstream history, his ideological brethren disowns. After repackaging past schemes and rechristening the planning commission, National Law Day — observed on Nov. 26 to mark the Constituent Assembly’s adoption of Indian constitution in 1949 — was renamed as Constitution Day only to enhance Modi’s battered image after the Bihar poll drubbing. And Ambedkar’s memory was exploited because of electoral profitability in India’s caste-ridden politics. Why else would Modi, whose ideological mentors in Rashtriya Sayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were very upset with the secular constitution that Ambedkar and his esteemed colleagues came up with, decide to celebrate the same document? “The worst about the new constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it. The drafters of the constitution have incorporated in it elements of British, American, Canadian, Swiss and sundry other constitutions. But there is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it,” lamented the RSS, four days after the constitution was adopted.
Hindutva ideologues, in fact, were never able to forgive Ambedkar for calling Hinduism “a veritable chamber of horrors.” Can the same Modi, who remains happily trapped in his bigoted Hindutva mindset, ever abandon his Hindu right-wing political lineage and embrace Ambedkar from the core of his heart? Very unlikely, as the much-publicized Constitution Day events exposed with India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh pressing for a majoritarian interpretation of secularism. Modi seems to be oblivious of the Chinese proverb that one foot cannot stand on two boats.
Is Modi, notwithstanding his liberal veneer, therefore a silent complicit in spreading minority phobia, Muslim to be precise, within India’s heterogeneous societal structure very subtly? What made him shy away from explicitly rebuking or removing ministers and BJP officials, openly indulging in anti-Muslim rumormongering and unabashedly advising Muslims and Modi critics to take shelter in Pakistan? Was Constitution Day not the most appropriate occasion to soberly reflect on the failure of the Indian state in fulfilling its obligations to defend the constitutional rights and liberties of vast sections of society, especially the underprivileged and minorities? Why did Modi not deemed it necessary to condemn unequivocally, from the august floor of Parliament, the worrying trend of parliamentarians or constitutional executives openly pillorying the core values of the constitution by declaring Hindustan or India to be a homeland of the Hindus only? Yes, the essence of constitutional democracy is majority rule, which is nothing but the making of binding decisions by a vote of more than one-half of all persons who participate in an election. However, given India’s diversity, tyranny of the majority against minorities must be discouraged. In the words of former US President Thomas Jefferson “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.”
But is Modi serious about curbing such oppression, as manifested in the brutal lynching and murder of an Indian Air Force personnel’s father on false charges of beef eating, with an iron hand? Ambedkar, himself was extremely worried about the fact that inner contradictions, unless handled sensibly, might lead to India losing her democracy. Modi needs to realize that Hindus do not necessarily have an organic claim over India just because they are in the majority. Ambedkar rightly warned fanatics opposing minority protection, that a disgruntled minority populace, who willfully placed their existence in the hands of majority, is detrimental to India’s unity and integrity. Since a constitution’s effectiveness is ultimately tested in times of extreme uncertainty, it remains to be seen whether Indian liberalism survives the current Hindutva onslaught.
