Indian Constitution is the Soul of India | Ram Puniyani

Defining Soul of India: Indian Constitution or Lord Ram

 

Ram Puniyani

The vibrations of the spectacle of inauguration of Lord Ram’s temple are still in the air (January 2024). This inauguration was done by Prime Minster Modi, who was at the center of the whole ceremony. He has ensured that he represents both the ‘state power’ and ‘religious power’. In feudal times these two powers were working in close collaboration, boosting each other. There was King-Pope, Nawab- Shahi Imam and Raja-Rajguru. In Maharashtra there is a very apt rhyming of this collaboration, Shetji-Bhatji. (Landlord and Priest). That the country is being ruled by politics in the name of religion is seeing this fusion is a matter of deep concern.

When India became Independent and Indian Constitution came into being, the presence of religion in social space was very much there, and so the controversy around Somnath Temple. As Dr. Rajendra Prasad was planning to inaugurate the temple as the official head of the state, Nehru wrote to him, "I confess that I do not like the idea of you associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath Temple. This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications,".

Nearly seven decades down the line Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India inaugurated the temple with pomp and show and the President of India, Draupadi Murmu as onlooker from her vast Rashtrapati Niwas, was the appreciative onlooker. The Central Cabinet not only hailed this act but went a step further to pass a resolution, “…the body of the country attained Independence in 1947…the Pran Pratishtha (Consecration of Idol of Lord Ram) was done on 22^nd January 2024… As per the resolution Ram Temple movement has united the country as never before and it is the day when India’s soul got freedom. “(Indian Express, January 25^th Mumbai)

While on one hand this shows the erosion of the secular values which we saw was the attempt by the state to keep aloft most of the time, though in a compromised way, now the word secular is a strict no. Even Nehru at that time had realized that while the Constitution is based on secular values; the society is in the grip of religiosity.

Nehru advised the President not to inaugurate the Somanth Temple in his official capacity, now the whole Cabinet is hailing Modi not only for inaugurating the temple but also adding that this inauguration marks the freedom of Soul of India.  As such the slavery of India has been another contentious matter. One big actor Kangana Ranaut, drawing a large applause, had declared that India got Independence in 2014, when Modi became Prime Minister. Prime Minister and his ideological cohorts have been saying that India was a slave for over a thousand years. Meaning that the period when the Muslim Kings ruled, was a period of slavery. How can we define the slavery of a country or a region? Broadly two major criterions can be applied. One when the region is being controlled from outside. The Muslim kings who ruled did settle here and ruled in collaboration with the local landlords-kings.

The second major criterion is when the region's wealth is drained out. The period of Muslim rule did not see any such phenomenon. This phenomenon was seen during the British period. Shashi Tharoor in his book, the ‘Dark Era of Empire’ tells us the drain of wealth from India to England during this period. British rule was the period of slavery in both these counts. Some Muslim Kings plundered but they did not stay here to rule.

Now the freedom of 1947 was accompanied by the Sovereignty and bestowing the power to our representatives. What about the ‘soul of India’? What is the soul of India? The soul of Indian lies in the values which were the base of the freedom movement. The soul of India lies in these movements which accompanied and ran parallel to the freedom movement. These were the movements of workers and farmers; these were the movements for social equality. The soul of India was built on the foundation of Indian Civilization, which is well described by Nehru  India as “some 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.”

Freedom movement drew heavily from the movements of farmers (Bardoli, Champaran among others), movements of workers; the one’s led by Narayan Meghaji Lokhande and Com. Singarvelu to name the few, and the struggles for social equality of caste and gender. This began with Joti Rao Phule, Savitri bai Phule, Bhimrao Ambedkar and Ramasami Periyar Naicker. These transformed the society from the values of ‘feudal like’ society to the one with aspirations for democratic society.

The Indian Constitution is the embodiment of “Soul of India” for the majority of the people. Those who did not participate in the freedom movement were the ones who upheld the caste and gender hierarchy of earlier society, these were the social classes that were on one hand against the caste and gender equality and on the other were against the rights of farmers and workers. These were precisely the forces which asserted the politics in the name of religion, Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS.

Muslim League on one side was claiming that Muslims were the rulers, while Hindu Mahasabha-RSS asserted that we have been a Hindu Nation, Islam and Christianity are foreign religions. Surendra Nath Bannerjee well articulated the rising India in his book, ‘India: Nation in the making’, reflecting the country’s sentiments as it was shaping around the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Today claims of Lord Ram being the uniting figure are being made. Lord Ram has many interpretations. A mythological figure presented by Mahrishi Valmiki and later popularized by Goswami Tulisdas is one interpretation. Kabir saw the Lord as embodiment of universal humanism and Gandhi saw him as a uniting figure. RSS-BJP has presented Ram as an exclusionary figure. Around the campaign for this temple how many lives have been lost, how the society has been polarized, how the minorities have been ghettoized and how the plight of dalits, Adivasis, women and workers has been worsened during last few decades gets reflected in the social indices and the emergence of Muslim ghettos, all around.

Today we do face the attack on the ‘Soul of India’ as it emerged during the freedom movement, in contrast the ‘Soul of India’ as being presented by the present ruling dispensation's efforts to create a spectacle around the temple!   

Anant Hegde’s comment on the Constitution was designed to provoke and earn political brownie points | Editorial, Hindustan Times

Editorial, Hindustan Times,Dec 28, 2017

Those who are quick to condemn the majoritarian theocracy in our neighbourhood should pause to consider where we would be headed with the glue of secularism holding us together.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often said that the only holy book in his eyes is the Constitution of India. Clearly, his junior minister for skill development, Anant Kumar Hegde, is not on the same page. Hegde recently said that his government is “here to change the Constitution” and that it would, pointedly referring to the use of the term secular, which is one of the adjectives used to define India in the Constitution. He also made some disparaing remarks about secular people. He has since apologised after even his party distanced itself from his unwarranted remarks.

The fringe right-wing, even some members of the BJP have been talking about this change of the Constitution for some time using sly arguments about how it should be based on the ethos of society. The ethos often referred to reflects a majoritarian approach that seems to involve stamping out individualism, circumventing civil liberties, erasing socialism ,and eliminating all vestiges of secularism.

Mr Hegde, as a parliamentarian, ought to have known that a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 had clearly stated that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered in exercise of the constituent powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

The Constitution should be changed only if a cataclysmic event, geo-political, economic, maybe technological, necessitates it . That too would have to pass the scrutiny of the judiciary. To be sure, people opposed to the terms socialist and secular in the Constitution often refer to the 42nd amendment which introduced these words into the document in 1975. The amendment also made a lot of other changes (including reducing the powers of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws) , and it was enacted at a horrible time in India’s history, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t easy to take offence at the two terms in a poor country with a pluralistic society. Indeed, no government since has sought to remove the terms.

The BJP leadership should make it clear to its ministers to not use the Constitution to make political points, as was obviously Mr Hegde’s intent. If indeed Mr Hedge wants to be seen as a radical thinker, then he should perhaps start closer home -- with his own ministry, for instance. India’s skills development ministry has a big task in hand -- ensuring that people acquire the kind of skills that are in demand in the job market. It’s leadership was changed a few months ago, and a new senior minister and junior minister (that’s Mr Hegde) appointed to address the challenge. His job, presumably, is to do just that and leave the worrying about the Constitution to others

SOURCE URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorials/anant-hegde-s-comment-on-the-constitution-was-designed-to-provoke-and-earn-political-brownie-points/story-tsrPAuxkpqmWV3qzuh1DYM.html

25 blighted years: Constitution offers a better India than anything in our past. Make it an article of faith - Editorial, The Times of India

Editorial, The Times of India

25 blighted years: Constitution offers a better India than anything in our past. Make it an article of faith

December 6, 2017, 2:00 am IST TOI Edit in TOI Editorials | Edit Page, India | TOI

Today is a day that can make one pause and wonder about an India that might have been. It is usually marked as the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Few also remember it as the death anniversary of BR Ambedkar, principal draftsman of the Constitution whose vision undergirds the Indian Republic. On August 15, 1947, and again on January 26, 1950, India “solemnly resolved” to leave the past behind and build a new republic, guaranteeing equality and protection to all, irrespective of religion, caste and other identity markers. By failing to stop karsevaks from entering the Masjid premises, the central and UP governments dishonoured that promise.

Therefore, it’s well worth reiterating on this occasion that if the declaration of the Indian Republic marks a break in time, this also means that after 1950, a citizen of India who happens to be a descendant of Aurangzeb or Rana Pratap has absolutely equal rights with any other citizen of India. The 1576 battle of Haldighati is definitively over. And in any case, the habit of looking at pre-colonial history as a perennial war between Hindus and Muslims is a British colonial construct (which unfortunately has duped many Indians). Indians now need to focus their energies on social, political and economic reforms that abolish poverty and pave the way for development, not on religious wars.

The Supreme Court has begun final arguments on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, which Allahabad high court had clumsily resolved by effecting a three-way division of the disputed land, a relief none of the claimants had sought. Embracing a fractious past makes the dispute seem intractable. But amidst all the politics of grievance surrounding it, one yearns for an India where the simple and reasonable would also seem an obvious way of ending the dispute.

Why can’t, for instance, a grand Ram temple be built at a nearby location on the Sarayu’s banks, since all of Ayodhya is holy for Hindus? Demolition of the mosque was a criminal act, therefore it would be unreasonable to reward such an act by handing over the site to the very people who demolished it. As for what to do with the site itself, surely some creative solution can be thought of that fosters reconciliation and harmony – such as a museum commemorating religious syncretism in India.

India: Rescuing Individual Rights From the Chokehold of Groups Rights | Satya Prasoon and Ashwini Tallur

Rescuing Individual Rights From the Chokehold of Groups Rights
By Satya Prasoon and Ashwini Tallur on 03/12/2017

The rights of a religious group under the constitution have to be seen differently from other groups such as political parties, which are voluntary associations.

https://thewire.in/201434/constitution-individual-group-rights-religion/

India: The case against triple talaq - Personal law must be subordinate to fundamental rights . . - Editorial in Livemint

livemint.com - May 16, 2017

The case against triple talaq

Personal law must be subordinate to fundamental rights and subjected to the test of constitutional validity

Editorial

“Can what is sinful in the eyes of God be lawful? If God considers it a sin, it can’t be legal. Can it be?” Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar’s question on the second day of the Supreme Court (SC) case regarding the constitutional validity of triple talaq sums up the difficulties surrounding the contentious issue. Wading through the thicket of religious interpretation is a tricky task for any secular legal authority. More importantly, Khehar’s framing of a just law validated by religious belief points to the dangers inherent in blurring the boundaries between the two.

Triple talaq as it is practised in India—the husband saying “talaq” thrice to the wife in one go—must be addressed on multiple fronts. The same holds true for the associated practice of Nikah Halala—a divorced woman having to marry another man, consummate the marriage and have him divorce her before being able to remarry her first husband. The first front is that of constitutional protection—whether these practices are safeguarded under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to “profess, practice and propagate religion”. This is the approach the SC has adopted; it is examining if triple talaq forms an essential part of Islamic belief and practice.

That is venturing into tricky territory. On the face of it, there is substantial evidence that triple talaq is an innovation that has little to do with Quranic prescriptions. This is the argument made by the petitioners. It is buttressed by the text of the Quran as interpreted in the bulk of Islamic scholarship, as well as historical evidence and legal precedent. After all, a number of Islamic states, from Morocco and Algeria to Iran and Indonesia, have introduced modernizing legislation when it comes to divorce. And in multiple instances—A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma, 1970, Kerala high court and Shamim Ara v. State Of UP And Ors, 2002, Supreme Court, for example—the courts have ruled against triple talaq as it is practised today.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, on the other hand, defends triple talaq as an integral part of Islamic law and, therefore, beyond the realm of the judiciary. Thus, the SC must in effect take a stand in a long-running global debate: Is Islam a “blueprint for a social order”, in Ernest Gellner’s words, or is there a distinction between Islamic—the religious—and Islamicate—associated cultural phenomena—as Marshall Hodgson suggested? The limits this imposes on the SC are apparent. If it concludes in the triple talaq case that the former holds and the practice is indeed an essential part of the religion in India, its hands are tied. It has admitted as much by saying that if it finds that triple talaq is fundamental to religion, it will not go into the issue of its constitutional validity.

This gives an undeserved sanctity to religious law. It is why addressing the issue on another front as well—placing Islamic or any other personal law in the context of constitutional liberalism rather than depending merely upon religious reform—is important. A number of the petitioners have argued that triple talaq violates their fundamental right to equality before the law, to non-discrimination on grounds of sex and to life and liberty. Indeed, Article 25(1) explicitly states that freedom of religion is subject to other fundamental rights. The Allahabad high court recently ruled so as well in the Shayara Bano case; she is also one of the SC petitioners.

The other argument against subjecting personal law to the constitutional validity test—that it is not a “law” as defined by Article 13 of the Constitution—has a precedent in the 1951 Bombay high court judgement in State Of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali. But as Gautam Bhatia has argued convincingly, this rests on far too narrow a reading of Article 13—one that can and must be overruled by the SC.

And that brings in the third front: the uniform civil code. Much of the opposition to the SC’s taking up the triple talaq issue stems from the fear that it is a back door for bringing in the uniform civil code. That would be the wrong way to go about it—but the goal is a worthy one. Arguments that this will stifle diversity and result in the imposition of Hindu laws are specious. As B.R. Ambedkar pointed out in the Constituent Assembly debates, uniform criminal laws and what amounts to a uniform civil code in the majority of civil law areas other than personal law already exist. They have not compromised religious freedom in any fashion. Nor is the need for a uniform civil code solely to do with Muslim personal law. Inequities exist in the other personal laws as well, from Hindu to Parsi.

The move to a uniform civil code will be a slow process and must be an inclusive, multi-stakeholder one. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made conciliatory noises so far regarding the triple talaq case. But if he gives in to the temptation to use the issue for political advantage, it will make introducing the UCC debate in the public domain unviable for a good many years. Indeed, the wider political context—his administration’s failure to reign in gau rakshaks, or cow protection vigilantes, for instance—is already unhelpful.

Seven decades ago, the members of the Constituent Assembly chose the politically expedient path. The uniform civil code has been frozen as a directive principle of state policy since. If the ideal of a common law for all citizens in a secular republic—one that adheres to constitutional principles and ensures gender equality—is to be realized, the Centre will have to show both courage and statesmanship.

India: The non-inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the original Constitution cannot be a reason to recommend its removal now

The Hindu, November 2, 2016

Why diversity needs secularism

• Shaikh Mujibur Rehman

The non-inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the original Constitution cannot be a reason to recommend its removal now

The expansion and consolidation of the Hindu Right’s political power has raised legitimate concerns about the future of India’s secularism. While criticism of secularism could be found in the public debate during the anti-colonial struggle, the sustained assault on it became particularly apparent during the Ayodhya movement. During the late 1980s and 1990s, the public campaign led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) advocated that the practice of secularism has led to the appeasement of Muslims. The BJP further argued that it has been quite harmful to India’s democratic polity because it has been institutionalising vote-bank politics, and that what is needed is in fact an attempt for a ‘positive’ secularism as opposed to ‘negative’ secularism. While these distinctions were widely used during those days, surprisingly it has vanished from the political lexicon of the Hindu Right in recent years. 

Secularism, unity and diversity

The most significant moment of this departure in the politics of the Hindu Right was during the 2014 election campaign. For the first time in Indian history, Narendra Modi, as a prime ministerial candidate, unleashed the most sustained attack on the idea of secularism in meeting after meeting. At a meeting in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on March 26, 2014, he reminded people how the idea of secularism has kept Muslims poor. On this issue, he has remained rather consistent even after becoming Prime Minister, although he has vacillated on many other issues. At a party in Berlin on April 14, 2015, hosted by the Indian Ambassador, he spoke of how Sanskrit has suffered owing to India’s so-called “secular fever”.

There are also occasions when Mr. Modi has made statements on diversity being India’s strength without recognising that diversity as a political project can only be effective with secularism as a working foundational value. This is a tragic flaw in the Hindu Right’s understanding of the notion of diversity. Inaugurating the debate on intolerance in Parliament on November 26, 2015, Home Minister Rajnath Singh explained how this idea of secularism has been misused and how the word is the most abused one. According to the Hindu Right, there are perhaps some benefits of secularism, but they are trivial and could be easily found in the ideology of Hindutva, apparently noble, kind, and all-embracing. It seems to suggest thereby that the problem is not with the idea of Hindutva, but with the misconceptions of secularists about this otherwise noble idea.

The Hindu Right is seemingly keen on reminding everyone that India’s founding fathers including B.R. Ambedkar did not consider it necessary to introduce the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was inserted as part of the 42nd amendment during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule. In his speech, Mr. Singh specifically mentioned Ambedkar’s reluctance to introduce the word. The fact is that Ambedkar made two interventions in the debate on Professor K.T. Shah’s resolution on this issue, and chose to remain silent on the secularism question although he firmly opposed the entry of the word ‘socialism’ on the ground that future generations should have the freedom to choose their economic path. Ambedkar was not a convinced socialist at all. But analysis of his writings on minority rights, Muslims, Pakistan etc. when seen in the context of his pronouncements like “I was born Hindu, but won’t die as one” or “Hinduism is not a religion” echoes a particular brand of secularism, very distinct from the Nehruvian or the Gandhian one. His secularism is about human dignity, and his idea of secular political culture is to contribute to the emancipation of human beings from all kinds of man-made suffering inflicted in the name of religion. Had he been alive today, he would have been, no doubt, the most fierce and erudite critic of Hindutva politics. 

An omission yet unexplained

These two words — secular and socialist — entered the Constitution when most leaders of the Opposition were under arrest for their resistance to the Emergency. Since these words were retained during the 44nd amendment under the Janata Party regime, it is suggestive of a broad consensus among India’s political leadership for their insertion in the Constitution.

Why did our founding fathers not include them in the Constitution in the first place? Scholars have tried to explain this. In his presidential address to the Indian History Congress, Malda, in 2015, historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya argued that it was Jawaharlal Nehru’s and Ambedkar’s larger belief in the values of equality and justice that encouraged them not to introduce these words. One wonders how one could speak of equality and justice in a multi-religious society without secularism.

Moreover, it would be almost impossible to argue that Indira Gandhi was the greater defender of Indian minorities or a bigger patriot compared to Nehru or Ambedkar. There is little knowledge about the circumstances in which she chose to introduce these words. Did she do it on her own or was she advised by somebody? In a recent memoir, President Pranab Mukherjee tells us that it was on the advice of Siddhartha Sankar Ray that she introduced the Emergency. Moreover, Indira Gandhi was not just one of the past Prime Ministers of India like, say, H.D. Deve Gowda; she was also Nehru’s daughter. Was she privy to any particular discussion with Nehru about the reason why he was not keen on pressing for the insertion of these words? We do not have definite answers to these questions as yet.

Others like diplomat-turned-politician Pavan K. Varma argue that the threat to India’s secular fabric from the Hindu Right was far greater during the 1970s, which is why Indira Gandhi considered it necessary to introduce these words. Even socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan was concerned with the growing influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on the Morarji Desai government, for which he wrote a specific letter expressing his concerns about its Hindutva project. As things stand now, there is no convincing answer as to why the word “secular” was left out in the first place, and that gives the Hindu Right a convenient handle to twist the debate in its favour in their advocacy for its removal.

Shaikh Mujibur Rehman is the editor of ‘Communalism in Postcolonial India: Changing Contours’ (Routledge, 2016). He teaches at Jamia Millia Central University, New Delhi.

India: Why do our constitutional debates matter? (Vikram Raghavan)

livemint.com, 5 October 2016

Why do our constitutional debates matter?

They can help us retrace the roads taken along India’s republican journey, even as they shape and define our common political identity as citizens

 by Vikram Raghavan

In August 1951, an elegantly attired European walked into Madras University’s beach campus. An Austro-Hungarian by birth, Charles Henry Alexandrowicz was an international lawyer from London. He had been recruited to head the university’s new department of international and constitutional law. Unfazed by the stifling heat, Alexandrowicz set himself a punishing schedule and quickly transformed his department into a leading research centre.

Six years later, Alexandrowicz wrote a short monograph: Constitutional Developments In India. He pointed out that courts were frequently ignoring the constituent assembly’s debates about the framing of our Constitution when deciding constitutional cases. He felt that this was a mistake as the debates offered valuable guidance. The debates could help fill gaps in the Constitution’s text; lessen tensions between the legislature and judiciary; reduce the need for constitutional amendments; and adapt the charter to changing times.
Alexandrowicz’s ideas challenged prevailing practice. When interpreting a law, Indian judges consistently declined to rely on floor speeches made during its passage in the legislature. The Supreme Court later extended this principle to the Constitution itself. It reasoned that the assembly’s proceedings published in a multiple-volume set, the Constituent Assembly Debates, weren’t helpful in resolving disputes about the Constitution’s meaning. Only the text’s actual words and phrases mattered.
Not everyone shared this view. Some judges used the assembly’s committee reports to resolve ambiguities in the text. In doing so, they broadened our understanding of “constitutional debates” to cover assembly documents other than the speeches found in the Debates. But even these documents were only sparingly used in constitutional litigation.
After the 1973 Kesavananda case, however, the judiciary’s attitude shifted. Lawyers and judges began openly consulting and citing the debates. Alexandrowicz, however, received no credit for this turnaround. He had moved to Australia in 1961 and his attention turned to other subjects.
Just before Alexandrowicz left India, a young American arrived in Delhi. Granville Austin’s research focused on the assembly’s personalities, politics and processes. Constitutional Developments was among the first books that he read. Austin included multiple references to the book in his PhD thesis, which was later published under the title Indian Constitution: Cornerstone Of A Nation.
Cornerstone was the first authoritative account of our Constitution’s making. Its footnotes were crammed with quotations and citations from the Debates. It quickly became a standard reference text for the bar and the bench. Contemporaneous with Cornerstone, the Indian Institute of Public Administration published a five-volume series, The Framing Of India’s Constitution. It contained committee minutes, reports, and drafts from the assembly’s files. Shortly thereafter, the British government began releasing its India records in a 12-volume set called Transfer Of Power. These bulky volumes shed new light on the assembly’s early days.
Outside the law, however, not many knew about these resources and those who did were unable to find them. Aside from bar associations and high courts, most libraries either lacked the entire collection or imposed access restrictions on relevant volumes. The historian, Ramachandra Guha, was able to read the full set of Debates only at Stanford University, US. His resourceful bookseller in Delhi was simply unable to procure them.
When I began law school, the library had an incomplete assortment of the Debates. It did not have a single Framing or Transfer Of Power volume. Tellingly, no one tore pages from the Debates—they simply weren’t in demand. After all, our professors argued that the debates were an “archaeological method” to study constitutional law. This mindset prevailed until quite recently.
Things are, however, changing. Across the country, law students are using the debates for projects and articles. Assembly speeches are prescribed reading not only in law schools but also in many social science departments. What’s most remarkable, however, is that many ordinary citizens are also becoming voracious readers of the Debates. Why is this happening?
First, the assembly’s records are more widely available than ever before. For many years, the Debates and the Framing collections were out of print. In 2000, the Lok Sabha reprinted the Debates on superior quality paper and later uploaded the entire content on to its website. An updated Framing series was published in 2004. More recently, the Centre for Law and Policy Research launched an easy-to-access online Debates portal.
Second, rising interest in B.R. Ambedkar has contributed to greater curiosity about the assembly. Until the 1980s, Ambedkar’s constitutional contributions weren’t widely acknowledged. Yet, as our national pantheon expanded beyond Gandhi and Nehru, the intellectual elite and public grew more fascinated with Ambedkar and his role in the constitution-making exercise.
Third, overcoming past ambivalence towards the Constitution, many historians and political scientists acknowledge the Debates’ importance to modern Indian history. In his monumental India After Gandhi, Guha devotes an entire chapter to the assembly. Shefali Jha, Rochana Bajpai, Niraja Jayal and Pratap Bhanu Mehta have all written extensively about the assembly on a wide range of topics. This academic interest has now filtered down into high school curricula. The National Council Of Educational Research And Training’s (NCERT’s) new civics and governance textbooks feature several excerpts from the debates. This will only further boost public interest in the assembly.
But returning to our central theme, why do the debates matter?
First, the debates are a large reservoir of material about our founding. They reveal the nation’s highest ideals, common aspirations, and constitutional values. They help us retrace the roads taken along India’s republican journey, even as they shape and define our common political identity as citizens.
Second, the debates reveal a great deal about our founders. Those men and women had conflicting ideological beliefs and political allegiances. Yet, it was this team of rivals that founded a modern constitutional democracy over the Raj’s ruins. They did so under hardly propitious circumstances. Delhi was burning after Partition. Refugees streamed in. India fought a war with Pakistan. And Gandhi was assassinated. Undaunted by these events, the assembly pressed on.
Third, the debates can help resolve recurring controversies such as whether India ought to have a presidential rather than a parliamentary system. Or whether a collegium is necessary for judicial appointments. The debates can supply the form and content of the Constitution’s basic features, which lie beyond the reach of constitutional amendments.
Finally, as much as they shine a light on the past, the debates can help address present-day questions that the assembly neither faced nor foresaw. Take, for instance, the controversy over government restrictions on social media. Meeting in the late 1940s, assembly members could not have imagined a world with Twitter or Facebook. Yet, their passionate colloquies about the importance of free expression remain sobering admonitions to legislators and policymakers.
Like any historical text, the debates must be understood in context and with care. I, for one, take a few precautions when researching what the assembly decided on any given question.
First, it is not a good idea to rely exclusively on the Debates to understand the assembly’s thinking. Those volumes are largely verbatim transcripts from three readings of the draft constitution in the assembly. They can be either silent, or even misleading, about specific issues. As vividly depicted in Shyam Benegal’s TV series Samvidhaan, many questions were settled outside the assembly chamber. One must consult other sources such as the Framing volumes or oral histories, to obtain the full picture.
Second, India has one of the largest collections of founding documents. This mass can inevitably lead to multiple, even competing, narratives about the assembly’s ultimate choices. Even so, we should not forcibly attempt to reconcile conflicting narratives. Indeed, multiple readings of the “debates” only enhance their richness and relevance.
Third, it is difficult to isolate the assembly’s collective positions from selective quotations or stray speeches. This is especially true for complex questions like secularism, property and language. On religion, for instance, more than a hundred members took the floor. As James Chiriyankandath reveals, these interventions resulted in a bewildering cacophony of opinions.
Finally, while in the US, I’m struck by how much Americans revere their founders who lived in the 18th century. They worry immensely about what James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson might think about global positioning system devices, late-term abortions, or violent video games. Indeed, the conservative Tea Party insists that the American constitution must be understood exclusively through its founders’ beliefs from more than 200 years ago.
A liberal at heart, Alexandrowicz would have been baffled by this phenomenon. Yes, he, too, called for understanding the Constitution with the historical prism of the assembly debates. But his principal objective in so doing was to promote awareness about the document itself. Reading the debates was just one way to achieve that goal. Alexandrowicz would have certainly opposed any American-style hero worship of our founders. India needs no Tea Party in rediscovering the Constitution through its founding debates.
Vikram Raghavan is working on a book about India’s founding as a republic.

India: Go for constitutional guarantees, not readings of religion (Razia Patel)

The Indian Express

Only the constitution
Muslim women must count on its guarantees, not readings of religion.

Written by Razia Patel | Published:September 9, 2016 12:04 am

Razia Patel Muslims are failing to assert the real essence of Islam, which is very progressive as far as the rights of women are concerned.

Syeda Hameed has written an article titled ‘Just keep the faith’ (IE, August 30) regarding the Mumbai High Court’s judgement allowing the entry of women into the Haji Ali dargah. The main argument in this article can be summarised thus: Islam, as a religion, provides enough progressive reasons to allow women to enter the mazar, which could have been used to support the decision, but the judgement invokes articles of the Indian constitution while supporting the logic behind the verdict. In her own words, she is “pained” to see this.

According to her, Muslims are failing to assert the real essence of Islam, which is very progressive as far as the rights of women are concerned. This logic, if extended, leads to the conclusion that all the issues of Muslim women should be resolved within “Islam” and there is no need to go to constitutional courts .

One can choose whether or not to go to courts of law to get justice, but once you opt to go there, you must bear in mind that the courts are established to safeguard the fundamental rights provided by the constitution and not according to any religion.
×

The philosophy in this article, in essence, emphasises that “our religion” provides all the freedom and values of equality to women and the masses should be taken back to “real” religious values. However, it must be noted that the ground realities are very different. The common Muslim woman has suffered hugely from religious traditions and dictates and has resorted to Indian courts to seek justice even if she happened to be alone in this struggle. For all such people who seek justice, thanks to the visionary makers of our constitutions like B.R. Ambedkar and others, it is only the Indian Constitution that has proven to be helpful. The constitution has been the sole support for them so far.

Undoubtedly, there are lacunae in the existing system — such as delays and high costs — which need to be addressed. Instead of fighting for these, we see that some women’s NGOs like the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, following the same logic as Syeda Hameed, have been engaged in opening sharia courts for women and training women qazis all over the country. While conducting a nationwide survey for a national fellowship, I had asked women “Insaaf kahan se chahiye? Jamaat se ya court se?” (Where do you want justice from? Religion or the courts?) In reply, most of the women very clearly stated “Court se”.

With regard to the point about the “real interpretation of Islam”, in reality, there are various strong, deep-rooted religious institutions and authorities with national and international sanction, who have been conferred with the right to interpret the religion. Such authorities are so strong within the community that the interpretations by other so-called progressive social academics do not make any impact. On the other hand, the Indian Constitution provides a legitimate state supported framework for deprived communities and individuals to assert their struggle for human rights.

Based on these values and rights enshrined in the constitution, many other exploited groups in India have fought for their rights and have been successful in most cases. However, in the case of Muslim women who seek justice from courts of law, intellectuals are pushing them back to religion repeatedly. The same phenomenon is observed with initiatives like sharia courts and mahila qazis. In 1986, Shah Bano fought in a court of law to assert her right to receive maintenance. The government of the time crushed this effort by changing the constitution following the demands of religious leaders.

The path of women’s liberation is through the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It is unfortunate that rather than leading the community towards absolute human rights, intellectuals are making the situation for the community worse by resorting to the logic of a religious framework.

After Independence, the Indian masses have experienced liberation by adopting a progressive constitution in 1949 that proclaims the values of equality and justice. Since then, all Indian communities have embarked on their struggle to assert the same. Muslims too are entitled to enjoy this citizenship with equal rights. Religious frameworks are always subjected to many conflicting interpretations and Muslim women cannot risk the chance that only the progressive interpretation will prevail. The only guarantee for her is the clear provisions of the constitution safeguarding her rights. We all need to insist on adhering to the constitutional framework, instead, as a guideline for future struggle.
The writer is head of the minority cell at the centre for educational studies in Indian Institute of Education, Pune

India: RSS Ideologue Govindacharya: ‘We Will Rewrite the Constitution to Reflect Bharatiyata’ (Interview in The Wire)

The Wire

RSS Ideologue Govindacharya: ‘We Will Rewrite the Constitution to Reflect Bharatiyata’
By Vrinda Gopinath on 20/06/2016

In this exclusive interview, K.N. Govindacharya speaks about Narendra Modi, Hindutva and his plans for a new framework for India’s Constitution.

K.N. Govindacharya refers to himself as a former Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) pracharak and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member, and modestly says that today he is only a foot soldier, one among the 40 lakh swayamsevaks who work on the ground to spread the Sangh’s Hindutva message. In the 1990s, though, he was the parivar’s celebrated ideologue who, in collaboration with mentor Lal Krishna Advani, shaped the BJP’s twin strategies of Ram mandir and social engineering. Indeed, journalists knew Govindacharya as the deceptively soft-spoken and friendly BJP strategist who would soon quit the party – which he argued had become an election-winning machine – to steer his own hardline path.

Today, away from the glare, Govindacharya is quietly working towards fulfilling his vision of ‘Bharat’ through the coalition group Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan. On the agenda are of course issues dear to the Sangh, such as cow protection and women’s role in society. But, importantly, the bigger project, with far-reaching implications for India’s future, is to rewrite the Constitution with a ‘Bharatiya’ emphasis. And this emphasis will necessarily take into account what he says is the “violent” nature of Islam and how it is irreconcilable with the “peaceful” orientation of Hindutva.

Govindacharya, who until recently was a bitter critic of Narendra Modi, seems to have become more accommodating towards the prime minister – also a one-time pracharak and a co-traveller during the ideologically transformative Ram janmabhoomi movement. This softening, as was clear during the interview, is because of the perception that the Modi government’s policies are increasingly in sync with the Sangh’s ideology.

In a free-wheeling conversation with The Wire, the former RSS pracharak spoke of the gradual but sure process currently afoot towards incorporating Bharatiyata into the country’s cultural consciousness. This process, he said, would prioritise people’s duties towards the nation over their rights.

Excerpts:

What do you make of the BJP’s spin on the so-called ‘exodus’ from Kairana? Party chief Amit Shah indicated that it would be a key poll issue, when facts on the ground clearly contradict the claim of exodus.

The political responses in favour (of) or against the exodus cannot be seen in isolation, nor is it fair to blame one community or the other. What cannot be disputed though is the global nature of the turbulence in today’s world. Be it Islam or the markets, it is a global phenomenon with a global impact. So, whatever is happening in Orlando cannot be seen in isolation, it is happening in Kairana, even in Jammu and Kashmir .

What factors do you think are causing the distrust that you say exists in places like Kairana? Does the origin lie in the demolition of the Babri Masjid which shook the Muslims and made them feel insecure in their own country?

The appeasement (of Muslims) that happened during the Shah Bano case boosted the morale of the Islamic clergy here and that over-assertion led to reactions from the Hindus.

In other words, the so-called ‘appeasement’ has to be countered by deepening the distrust between Hindus and Muslims? Is this the BJP’s gameplan?

Blaming XYZ does not take us anywhere, this distrust is happening globally. How do you explain the recruitment of Indians in ISIS?

What about Hindutva terror groups? The Bajrang Dal is training with arms.

You cannot expect one community to be peaceful in the face of the other community’s belligerence.

What have you done to stop this action and reaction?

There were solutions in the 1990s which I was privy to. I initiated many dialogues. For instance, I sat with the government, in V.P. Singh’s time and we explored many alternatives during the Ram mandir dialogue. I gave several proposals to the so-called Muslim community leaders. We said the land is dear to Hindus, the structure to Muslims; so, with the technology available to us, I said we can shift the mosque brick by brick to another suitable location acceptable to them. They said it was not possible; then I proposed that, okay, let the structure be as it is, let it be covered till such time a decision can be taken and I proposed a structure above the mosque. They said it was not acceptable as the Babri mosque was a place of worship and it cannot have another structure above it.

Why is the Ram mandir so important, especially when it causes such divisiveness in society?

The question itself hurts. It is Rama’s birthplace and he is an embodiment of Bharatiya values. For any nation, its values and embodiment of values have to be venerated and if that doesn’t happen, then civilisation doesn’t march forward.

What about violence by Hindutva groups? Even assuming the Kairana ‘exodus’ is a fact – which it is not – is it not connected with the lynching of Akhlaq in a neighbouring district?

Our way of protest is different, we deal with it democratically and by peaceful methods, which is alien to Islam. Muzaffarngar (the region in UP rocked by communal violence leading to displacement of Muslims) also had so many (Hindu) grievances.

Are you justifying what happened?

For me, it is painful that Hindus have to resort to exodus in their own land.

Hindutva has forced Muslims into exodus or ghettos too and this is also their own land.

The important point is the rupture is there and it has to be noted and remedied. So many complaints have come from many parts of western Uttar Pradesh. The process of integration in the region has been disrupted over a period dating back to a 100 years. Let me explain: from 1707 to 1892, integration was proceeding apace because of the assimilating capacity of Hindu society. The year 1707 was the 10th year of Aurangzeb’s rule, 1892 was when the first riot broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Bijnor district in western Uttar Pradesh, provoked by British colonial masters who ruled by using one community against the other. Until then, the Hindu identity was acknowledged even by the British. For instance, in 1858, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh Muslim University, said he was a Hindu because the term Hindu was related to the land, not religion. But in the first census of 1861, people were recorded as Hindu, Muslim, Christian. Hinduism was brought on par with Islam and Christianity.

What are you suggesting?

We must make a difference between Semitic and other religions, for if there is an amicable atmosphere, the mode of worship doesn’t count for Hindu society. If one or two gods are added it does not bother Hindu society, but the Semitic religions which are proselytising religions definitely threaten the overarching national identity.

You are part of discussions to make the directive principles of the Constitution into fundamental duties.

We believe that Indian society and its cultural reality should be included in the Constitution. There may be many gaps which need deliberations, and a cool, calm, dispassionate discussion needs the right atmosphere and a mechanism. However, this is just not possible in the media glare.

Can’t constitutional changes come through parliament?

Maybe, maybe not.

How can that happen?

For instance, the 1946 constituent assembly was not instituted by the people who were in the interim government, it was initiated by the British at the start of the process in 1935. So the constitutional exercise also has its own background and naturally a dispassionate discussion on all that happened at the time is necessary.

How do you propose to do it?

(laughs) We will do it, we are doing it.

How are you starting the discussion?

First those who have studied the Constitution will come together. Then we will look at the social realities, and see how to incorporate them. For example, in ‘Bharatiya’ society, family is the basic brick of society, and as in the Cuban Constitution, it is not the individual but family values that are crucial. Likewise, the exercise will begin to see what all can be included; it should not just be confined to issues like reservation.

You don’t believe reservations help social mobility?

Yes, they help to a certain extent, and reservation may be important emotionally, but we must discuss what more can be done to help people. Just ‘right to education’ is not enough. What is the point of reservation, if people can’t access schools in those deprived regions? Even normal schools may not work there because of their occupational difficulties, so we’ve got to change the education system and bring schools that suit them.

Similarly, in the bureaucracy, we must focus attention on why, in the last 70 years, it has become insensitive, (focussed on the) status-quo, corrupt and so centralised. To understand all these aspects, some sub-committee should be formed, people should come together and discuss continuously, it is not a one-day exercise.

So, you are asking for a second constituent assembly, to take another look at reservations?

In which there is power to the people and veto for the poor. And as many Constitution framers have pointed out, merely a good document is not enough – fundamental duties, not just rights, must also be incorporated.

For instance, cow protection is in the directive principles, would you like it to be a fundamental duty/right?

Not merely a fundamental right, the plank has to be eco-centric not anthropocentric development. I mean not just rights of the cow, but a holistic view of zamin, jal, janwar, jungle; for only in this protection lies the well-being of man. All the five must have sacred rights, and this should not just be rights-based but duty-based, and not just be components of state power. The cow is part of our civilisational past and it reflects those values, it should be a civilisational continuity in the preamble. The cow, environment protection, all this requires constitutional protection. It is part of Hindu ethos, culture – like Bishnois who embrace death by hugging those trees, this all ‘Bharatiya’ culture. Instead of assuming man is conqueror of nature, it is the duty of humans to protect nature, and all this must be incorporated in the Constitution.

What is missing or lacking today?

Our constitution is so vague, non-specific and basically a continuation of western philosophies of Hobbes, Locke and Kant. It is individual-centric and focused on his physical wellbeing. Our civilisation goes back 4,000-5,000 years.

How long will it be before you come up with a framework?

In a couple of years.

Before 2019?

See, I would not like to confine it to the electoral arena, I abhor that.

On the Modi government’s first anniversary last year, you said there was no difference between the National Democratic Alliance and United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Do you still hold the same views on Modi’s second anniversary?

I do not doubt the Modi government’s intentions and its grappling with the inert and insensitive bureaucracy and the problems arising from Centre-state relations. I’m no one to judge but I’d like to give it more time before judging its performance. Last year, I meant that there was a dialogue and trust deficit between the bureaucracy, legislatures and Centre. I also believed that their priorities are like the UPA’s, like smart cities and bullet trains, which is a view I still hold. I would rather the government focused more on decentralising food processing for instance, as agriculture, with its allied activities is the largest employer and best possible for many employment generation projects and it needs massive public investment.

You also pointed to the Modi government’s close proximity to industrialists? You had pointed at Adani.

At present, I think, more importance should be given to rein in corporates. As for Adani, there’s no need to emphasise on it, I’ve already said it… and I believe there is some distance now. I believe corporates should be reined in for several reasons. Take the call drop issue, the government should file a review petition in the court. The Supreme Court gave an adverse judgment on compensation and if the government feels the judgment was unfair, then it must come to the aid of consumers and go in appeal, which it has not done so far. Or, if the government feels the court was right, then it should come with an ordinance in the interests of the people. The government has done neither of the two, naturally questions arise in people’s minds.

But you are against ordinances. You disapproved the Modi government resorting to it in the Land Acquisition Bill for instance.

Ordinances are crucial sometimes, and here it is of urgency. The Telecom Commission continues to loot.

You shared a lot of time with Modi in the 90s, when both of you were pracharaks.

The prime minister is a very hardworking man and he’s trying his best to tackle the bureaucracy. We worked hard. I don’t remember much, it is so long ago, 16 years have passed since that time.

Do you believe that being a pracharak and a prime minister pulls him in different directions?

There is no contradiction in that. I don’t know what’s going on in his mind, but there is no tension or contradiction in this. I don’t think he has a problem here.

What is the relationship between Modi and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat?

Frankly, I don’t know. It must be cordial.

What are the BJP’s prospects in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Bengal?

It will have a ripple effect slowly, as it happened in 1977. It always takes five to ten years for a situation to mature.

The BJP was doing quite well in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana where it seems to have faltered.

Yes, especially in Telangana, but again just counting the number of MLAs and MPs does not speak of the strength of the (Hindutva) movement.

How has your movement influenced the government?

If Rs 80 lakhs have been sanctioned for each gram panchayat for five years in this year’s Budget, it is very much in sync with our Swabhiman Andolan’s agitation. That 7% of the Budget should go as untied funds to panchayats is part of our vision. Likewise, if we talk of promotion and the role of cow and its progeny in agriculture, then the ministries of agriculture and animal husbandry are looking at improving quality breeds, plans are going ahead in research centres. For example, in Varanasi, there are seven-eight projects for cow breeding as well as low cost, low capital agriculture and research. Then (there is) the unique project in Kaneri, Kholapur, which presents the idyllic village life before the Mughals came, our advice is being heeded to. We are also organising farmers, women’s movements in states. Lots of things are going on.

You were once famously quoted as saying Prime Minister Vajpayee was a mask? It is ironical that Modi’s election campaign was so much about masks!

I deny I ever said that about Atal ji. However, both have qualities of their own.

India: Arts Centre IGNCA chair Ram Bahadur Rai (former ABVP gen sec) Trashes role of Ambedkar in Constitution framing

IGNCA chief's Ambedkar remark singes BJP
TNN | Jun 8, 2016, 02.23 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Concerned about the ramifications of IGNCA chairman Ram Bahadur Rai's comment that "Ambedkar's role in framing the Constitution was a myth", BJP functionaries swung into action so that rivals do not take political mileage of the line which contradicts concerted efforts of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP members to eulogise B R Ambedkar and woo the politically decisive Dalit community.

In an interview to a weekly, Rai suggested that Ambedkar's role in framing the Constitution was limited. "Whatever material B N Rau gave him, he would correct its language. So Ambedkar did not write the Constitution. In fact, he said, if the Constitution is ever to be set on fire, then I will be the first to do so," Rai said in the interview, apparently quoting Ambedkar.

BJP's Scheduled Caste Morcha chief Dushyant Kumar Gautam said, "Rai's comments reflect his lack of awareness about Ambedkar. But it also smacks of some conspiracy," He claimed he had spoken to Rai, who assured him that his statement was in a context that he himself will clarify.

The NDA government had in April appointed Rai, a former ABVP general secretary, as chairman of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA). Rai said in an interview that Ambedkar merely "corrected" the language as the head of the drafting committee and the assertion that he played a key role in writing the Constitution was a "myth".


BJP spokesperson Shrikant Sharma said the party and the NDA government were committed to national icons like Ambedkar and this was reflected in the way the 125th birth ann- iversary of Ambedkar was celebrated recently. "The NDA government has developed five places related to Ambedkar as panch teertha and party workers have organised events on these venues," said Sharma.

He said any individual comments should not be attributed to the party or the government. "There is a section worried about the growing popularity of BJP and they are making desperate bids to malign the party," he added.

BJP vice-president Vinay Sahasrabuddhe said Ambedkar continued to be a "supremely important icon" of the emancipation of downtrodden sections of society, especially Dalits.

source URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IGNCA-chiefs-Ambedkar-remark-singes-BJP/articleshow/52645571.cms

India: Muslim women demand equal rights (two reports feb-march 2016)

[News reports follow ]

The Hindu, NEW DELHI, March 7, 2016

More Muslim women join cause with SC’s PIL for gender parity

Legal Correspondent

An initiative by the Supreme Court to probe gender discrimination in Islamic personal law has opened the door for Muslim women hailing from various parts of the country to come forward against their own religious practices of marriage, divorce and property inheritance.

Latest in the trickle of petitions being filed in the Supreme Court is one by the Kerala-based organisation, NISA - Progressive Muslim Women Forum, through its representative V.P. Zuhara. This organisation in Kozhikode district works for the civil and matrimonial rights of women

“Women who practice Muslim faith are still subjected to grave social evils that find sanction in the Shariat law and as a consequence, proliferates discrimination against the Muslim women in society,” it said.

In its plea, the organisation, represented by advocates Sriram Parakkat and Govind Manoharan, said the community was stuck in time since the passage of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act by the British in 1937. Progressive laws like the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, have not been able to wean the community away from discrimination shown to Muslim women.

The organisation rebuts the claim that a court cannot adjudicate on Muslim personal laws. The plea contends that courts can adjudicate under Article 13 if the Shariat law is found to be “inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights” of Muslim women.

This plea immediately follows the Supreme Court’s admission of an earlier petition filed by Shayara Bano to declare the practice of triple talaq, nikah halala (bar against remarriage with divorced husband without an intervening marriage with another man) and polygamy under Muslim personal laws as illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of the rights to equality, dignity, life and freedom of religion under the Constitution.

Ms. Bano had said she only wished to “secure a life of dignity, unmarred by discrimination on the basis of gender or religion.

On October 16, last year, the Supreme Court decided to register a PIL suo motu titled “Muslim women’s quest for equality” on gender discrimination women face under Muslim personal law.

The suo motu PIL and Ms. Bano’s petition are scheduled for hearing on March 28.

Response from across the country on practices of marriage, divorce and inheritance

o o o

Daily News and Analysis

Muslim women demand rights as granted by the Constitution
Representational image
dna Correspondent | Sun, 28 Feb 2016-11:29pm , New Delhi , dna

Around 400 Muslim women from over 14 states across the country have come together to demand for several rights enshrines to them.

While the whole country’s imagination has been captured by incidents in universities, and within the Parliament, quietly, without much hullabaloo, an unusual gathering has been taking place in a quiet corner in the capital: that of Muslim women demanding the rights as granted to them by the Constitution.

Around 400 Muslim women from over 14 states across the country have come together to demand for several rights enshrined in the Constitution to them, but have been systematically denied. The gathering, which included a national convention on Saturday, and a protest in Jantar Mantar on Sunday, had the participation of several organisations. The collective urged the women to work to strengthen and support Muslim women's leadership and bring more women into the political space for a collective struggle. The convention also called for women to stand together against communal violence and patriarchal forces that attempt to undermine women's solidarity.

These organisations, which came under the umbrella of the the Bebaak Collective, included social rights bodies like the Sanatkada Sadbhavna Trust (Lucknow), the Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiative (Lucknow) Vanangana (Bandha), Pragati Madhyam Samiti (Chitrakoot), Pehchaan (Dehradun), Muhim (Farukabad), Aastitva (Saharanpur), Parvaaz (Ahmedabad), Sahiyar (Vadodara), Muslim Mahila Manch (Nagpur) and the Aawaz-E-Niswaan (Mumbai).

Speakers at the national convention included Justice Rajinder Sachar, advocate Vrinda Grover, Prof Zoya Hasan and Dr Syeda Hameed. They emphasised on the need to unite against the systematic attack on the women. Justice Sachar, who headed the Sachar Committee, stressed on the fact that the findings of the Sachar Committee report is yet to find any value, and its recommendations any implementation.

Dr Syeda Hameed called for Muslim women to claim their right to define their own identity, their own beliefs and their own agenda. Historian Uma Chakravarti reflected and wondered if women were provided with social security by the state, women like Shah Bano would not have to fight against their own communities to claim miserable scraps as “benefits”.

Hasina Khan of the Bebaak Collective said that Muslim communities have always witnessed issues like communal riots, beef ban, hate speeches targeting them. There have also been covert and systemic forms of violence through the rhetoric of love jihad and ghar wapsi. These instances, along with many other quotidian forms of discrimination and violence against Muslims and other marginalised communities, have fostered an atmosphere of intolerance and fear in the country.

“Education, employment and mobility of Muslim women are major casualties under such circumstances. It is thus obvious that the current situation in our country deserves immediate attention and much needed deliberation relating to lived realities of Muslim women,” said Khan.

Reshma, who works with Sahiyar, said that their demands are simple. “We have three demands, we look for social security, right to citizenship and equality under the law, and the implementation of the Sachar Committee in all the states. Muslim people in slums in Gujarat are routinely targeted. It may not be as bad as 2002, but shops are routinely burned, or houses are destroyed. Muslim areas are never cleaned by the state authorities. In case a woman has a domestic problem, police routinely refuse to file an FIR,” said Reshma.

Modi's Idea of India (Part 1) PM’s concept of nationhood extends beyond constitutional parameters

The Indian Express

Modi’s idea of India-1
As his second Republic Day closes, it is clear PM’s concept of nationhood extends beyond constitutional parameters.


Written by Ashutosh Varshney | Published:January 27, 2016 12:02 am

Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the 67th Republic Day parade at Rajpath in New Delhi on Tuesday. (Source: PTI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the 67th Republic Day parade at Rajpath in New Delhi on Tuesday. (Source: PTI)

What is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s idea of India? In what ways is it different from, or similar to, the idea of India inherent in India’s Constitution? We now have over a year and a half of record, both speeches and actions, to answer this highly significant question. I will present my interpretation in two columns. This column lays out the external dimensions of Modi’s idea of India. The next column will concentrate on the internal features.

No Indian prime minister in history has courted the Indian diaspora more ardently. Earlier prime ministers met India’s overseas community in small gatherings. Modi has held mammoth community rallies in New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, San Jose, etc. What view of the nation has been expounded in these events? The question has both conceptual and empirical significance.

Scholars of nationalism routinely divide the foundational principles of nationhood into two types — jus solis (territory- or soil-based) and jus sanguinis (blood-based). France and the US are viewed as the prototypes of the first, Germany and Japan have been prime examples of the second.

In principle, anyone born on the soil of the US and France, even if she has Asian or African parents, can be an American or French national or citizen. The application of this principle has not been entirely smooth. Jews were seen as “not French” by many in France’s history, and today, many North African Muslims, despite citizenship, also do not feel fully included in the French nation. But jus solis has never been abandoned. If you are born in France, you remain eligible for French citizenship regardless of your ethnicity. The problems of integration are analytically distinguishable from citizenship.

Like France, the US too, at certain points in history, practised departures from its jus solis principle, especially with respect to African Americans, the Chinese and the Japanese. But the basic jus solis principle was never given up. Irrespective of the ethnic origins of parents, children born in the US can be American citizens.

In contrast, by making blood ties a decisive criterion of nationhood, Germany and Japan have lived their national lives and histories differently. Anyone born of German or Japanese parents anywhere in the world can be a German or Japanese citizen. After the Soviet Union fell, many Russian-speaking ethnic Germans automatically became citizens of Germany, even though they did not speak German. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of Turks, born in Germany, stayed on as “guest workers” for decades without being granted citizenship (although since 2000 it has become easier to become citizens). Similarly, Alberto Fujimori, a former Peruvian president of Japanese descent, seamlessly fled to Japan as a Japanese citizen, when charges of corruption were brought against him in Peru.

Where does India fit? At the time of Independence, India stayed away from the principle of blood ties. When the Constituent Assembly debated whether Indians in South Africa, East Africa, Sri Lanka, Malaysia or the Caribbean could get Indian citizenship, the accepted view was that while they were free to maintain their links with their relatives in India, they were citizens of the countries where they had been living, not citizens of India. But India did not go all the way towards a soil-based conception either, in that those having non-Indian parentage, but born in India, were not made citizens. The Calcutta Chinese were the best example. Since Calcutta was the capital of Britain’s Asian empire, many Chinese came to Calcutta as early as the 19th century to work and make a living. Their India-born children and grandchildren could only become citizens through a difficult process of naturalisation, not by birth.

Why did India, after rejecting the German-Japanese model, not go fully towards the French-American model? One answer is strategic. If jus solis had been accepted, the many million migrants from India to Pakistan at the time of Partition, having been born on Indian soil, would have been eligible for both Indian and Pakistani citizenship. Clearly, this would have raised difficult practical issues. But there is also reason to believe that leaders of independent India could not fully trust the “foreigner”. Their stance was far removed from Mahatma Gandhi’s view. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi had argued: “It is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. If the English become Indianised, we can accommodate them.” If the British accepted Indian culture as their own, Gandhi was prepared to view them as Indians. Ethnicity was irrelevant.

With the rise of BJP-led governments (1998-2004), things began to change. A vigorous attempt was made to woo non-resident Indians. The logical culmination of this move was the idea of “overseas citizens of India”, promoted under the NDA but turned into law in 2005. “Overseas citizens” were not allowed full citizenship, but given all rights except voting and eligibility to run for public office.

It is also a blood-based idea of nationhood that led to Sushma Swaraj’s fiery opposition to the possibility of Sonia Gandhi as prime minister of India in 2004. Swaraj argued that Sonia Gandhi was an Italian, not an Indian, even though she had married an Indian and become an Indian citizen.

Modi has taken this idea much further — in concept, if not in law. He has brought Indian nationhood even closer to the jus sanguinis model. Overseas Indians are part of his idea of India. Of the many speeches

he has given, nothing suggests this more clearly than the closing remarks of his Wembley speech in London: “Mera apka nata khoon ke rang se juda hai, aapke passport ke rang se nahin. Jitne adhikar Narendra Modi ke hain, utne aapke bhi (Our relations are based on the colour of our blood, not on the colour of our passports. All the rights that Narendra Modi has, you also do).” This statement is not legally factual. Overseas citizens of India can’t still vote in Indian elections nor contest for public office. But it expresses a political desire.

Whether this move is right or wrong is a separate debate. My objective here is not to judge, but to interpret a significant part of Modi’s external project. By focusing on blood ties and by repeatedly addressing ethnic Indians, both in London and abroad, as deshvasiyon (those who live in India), not pravasi Bhaaratiyon (overseas Indians), Modi is extending the idea of nationhood beyond the constitutional parameters. His courting of overseas Indians as part of the Indian nation is both exceptional and unambiguous.


The writer is Sol Goldman Professor of International Studies and the Social Sciences at Brown University, where he also directs the India Initiative at the Watson Institute. He is a contributing editor for ‘The Indian Express’ Part 2 will appear next week.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/narendra-modi-idea-of-india-republic-day/

India: Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha observed January 26, Republic Day, as "black day"

The Hindu
Meerut, January 26, 2016

Hindu group observes Republic Day as ‘black day’

Mohammad Ali

Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha demands that India to be declared a "Hindu state."

Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha observed January 26, Republic Day, as "black day" and took oath to make India a "Hindu Rashtra."

Over hundreds of activists of the Hindutva group waved black flags on the streets of Meerut on Tuesday.

Pandit Ashok Sharma, national Vice President of the Hindutva body, has been organising a protest against the Constitution of India since last five decades quite religiously. Tuesday, when entire country celebrated Republic Day, was no different for him.

Mr. Sharma, who was quite categorical in declaring that he didn't believe in Constitution of India, told The Hindu: "The purpose of my life and that of millions of people like me who are present in this country, is to make this country a Hindu Rashtra. Nobody can stop this country from becoming a Hindu Rashtra".

"This is the 51st year I, as an obedient solider of Hindu Mahasabha, have shown black flag to the idea of secular India and the Constitution which declares this nation to be secular," Mr. Sharma, a man in his late seventies who sports white beard told this correspondent.

Mr. Sharma got international limelight last year for coming up with the idea of temple for Nathuram Godse who had killed Mahatma Gandhi. On the occasion of mourning the Constitution of India, Mr. Sharma paid generous homage to Godse the "martyr" who "wanted to save India from Gandhi and his proposal of partition."

"Though the Indian State prevented us from installing Godse's statue in a temple but we are going to do that one day," he said.

Like Mr. Sharma, Bharat Rajput is also an old Hindu Mahasabha hand who has been actively taking up Hindutva causes.

Mr. Rajput, the district president of the Hindutva body, posed a question to this correspondent.

"When the partition of India happened, Pakistan became ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan.’ So, why was India not declared to be a 'Hindu Rashtra?"

"The anti-Hindu leaders like Gandhi and Nehru declared this country to be secular. We want to correct the historical mistakes which these people forced on us," Mr. Rajput declared.

After the protest, the Hindu Mahasbha volunteers sent a memorandum to the President of India, like they have been doing since last fifty years, demanding India to be declared a Hindu state.

India: Constitution and secularism (A.G. Noorani)

Frontline [Print edition : January 22, 2016]

Published on the web: January 6, 2016

Essay
Constitution and secularism

The 42nd Amendment made formal the Constitution’s basic commitment to the idea of a secular state—quite contrary to the BJP position that the amendment incorporated the idea in the Preamble. By A.G. NOORANI

UNION Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s remarks on November 26 during the Lok Sabha debate on “commitment to the Constitution” and Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s sterling contribution to its making deserve to be welcomed. They remove all doubt on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) allergy to the nation’s credo of secularism. He asked for a moratorium on the use of the term “secularism”. He argued that Ambedkar had never thought of putting the term in the Constitution “but the word[s] ‘socialist’ and ‘secularism’ were incorporated in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment. We have no objection. Let bygones be bygones.” Realising that he had let the saffron-hued cat out of the BJP’s bag, he went on to dilute his revealing remarks: “Dr Ambedkar had never thought of the necessity to incorporate it [sic] in the Preamble as these two words were part of the Constitution. It is inbuilt in the Indian system.”

Precisely. Then why refer to the 42nd Amendment at all? His discomfort with the credo is evident from his complaint: “Today, secularism is the most abused word. This abuse should stop as it abets communal tension.” Pray, how? Now read this expression of distaste straight from his heart: “We should instead use the term to mean ‘class neutral’. Even the Constitution-makers did not include the word secular in the Preamble because they knew our religion [read: Hinduism] was intrinsically secular and didn’t consider a separate mention essential” (emphasis added, throughout).

Constitutional illiteracy is combined with political deceit. Does the Constitution describe India as a democracy? It saw no need for that because the ideal is spelt out in specific provisions which mandate free and fair elections to the legislatures on the basis of adult suffrage with an independent Election Commission to monitor it. Next, the governments so elected, at the Centre and in the States, are made responsible to the directly elected legislature. The very Constituent Assembly that enacted the Constitution enacted the two Representations of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951.

Likewise, secularism is writ large in a mosaic of constitutional provisions; to wit, first on citizenship (Article 9); on non-discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc. (Article 15), generally and specifically in public employment (Article 16); the fundamental rights to freedom of religion individually (Article 25) and collectively (Article 26); ban on discrimination in state-aided educational institutions (Article 29(2)), on taxes for the promotion of religion (Article 27); on religious instruction in them (Article 28) and on exclusion from the general electoral roll on any such ground as well (Article 325). What does it all add up to but a secular state?

The BJP has always been uncomfortable with secularism. On September 16, 1990, in Kolkata, K.R. Malkani, its vice-president, urged a “redefinition” of secularism. On October 2, 1990, its president, L.K. Advani, frankly complained that “secular policy is putting unreasonable restrictions on Hindu aspirations”. He went on to assert at Ayodhya on November 19, 1990, that “henceforth only those who fight for Hindu interests would rule India”. Jaswant Singh felt “diminished” when Nepal ceased to be a Hindu state.

The BJP is heir to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, which was founded by a former president of the Hindu Mahasabha, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, under a pact with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) boss, M.S. Golwalkar. These elements were not only far outside the Congress movement but antagonistic to it. The Indian National Congress amended its constitution to exclude them from its membership. Article V(c) said: “No person who is a member of any elected Congress committee can be a member of a communal organisation, the object or programme of which involves political activities which in the opinion of the working committee are anti-national and in conflict with those of the Congress.” (Proceedings of the Working Committee, December 11-16, 1938.)

On June 5, 1947, B.M. Birla wrote to Vallabhbhai Patel: “I am so glad to see from the Viceroy’s announcement [of the Partition of India] that things have turned out according to your desire. It is no doubt a very good thing for the Hindus and we will now be free from the communal canker.

“The partitioned area, of course, would be a Muslim state. Is it not time that we should consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion? We have also to strengthen the country so that it may be able to face any future aggression.” Patel’s retort was swift. He replied on June 10, 1947: “I also feel happy that the announcement of 3 June at least settles things one way or the other. There is no further uncertainty. … I do not think it will be possible to consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The state must exist for all, irrespective of caste or creed.” If a Hindu state was excluded, what other state had Patel in mind but a secular one? (Durga Das; Sardar Patel’s Correspondence; Volume 4; page 56.)

It took the BJP long to laud Gandhi and longer still to laud Ambedkar. This is what Ambedkar wrote in a Memorandum on the Rights of States and Minorities, dated March 24, 1947, which he submitted to the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights set up by the Constituent Assembly’s Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, etc.: “Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism, while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism. Guided by such political philosophy the majority is not prepared to allow the minorities to share political power, nor is it willing to respect any convention made in that behalf as is evident from their repudiation of the obligation (to include representatives of the minorities in the Cabinet) contained in the Instrument of Instructions issued to the Governors in the Government of India Act of 1935. Under these circumstances there is no way left but to have the rights of the Scheduled Castes embodied in the Constitution.” (B. Shiva Rao; Select Documents; Volume 2, page 113.)

The Constituent Assembly Debates show that its members simply took secularism for granted and saw no need for its explicit mention. The Supreme Court has also held that secularism is part of the unamendable “basic structure” of the Constitution. What is more, the judges explicitly referred to the 42nd Amendment of 1976 and said that it only made explicit what was implied in the Constitution. Consult the Debates and the Supreme Court’s ruling and the BJP’s sophistry becomes all too clear. Member after member said, months before the Constitution was adopted, that India had “declared” secularism as its credo.

On December 3, 1948, Professor K.T. Shah moved this amendment. “The state in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith; and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union.” He acknowledged that “We have proclaimed it time and again that the State in India is secular”. Members agreed with that. There was no need to state the obvious. The amendment got nowhere. (Constituent Assembly Debates; Volume 7, page 815).

On the same day, Lokanath Misra also said: “We have declared the state to be a secular state” (ibid). On December 6, H.V. Kamath said: “We have certainly declared that India would be a secular state” (ibid, page 825). He was followed by Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, who said: “By secular state, as I understand it, is meant that the state is not going to make any discrimination whatsoever on the ground of religion or community against any person professing any particular form of religious faith. This means in essence that no particular religion in the state will receive any state patronage whatsoever. The state is not going to establish, patronise or endow any particular religion to the exclusion of or in preference to others and that no citizen in the state will have any preferential treatment or will be discriminated against simply on the ground that he professed a particular form of religion. In other words in the affairs of the state the possessing of any particular religion will not be taken into consideration at all” (ibid, page 831). On December 7, 1948, M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, later Speaker of the Lok Sabha, acknowledged: “We are pledged to make the state a secular one” (ibid, page 881).

Jawaharlal Nehru’s exposition of the provisions brings out the nuances of secularism. He said on August 12, 1949: “One word has been thrown about a lot. I should like to register my strong protest against that word. I want the House to examine the word carefully and it is that this government goes in for a policy of appeasement, appeasement of Pakistan, appeasement of Muslims, appeasement of this and that. I want to know clearly what that word means. Do the honourable Members who talk of appeasement think that some kind of rule should be applied when dealing with these people which has nothing to do with justice or equity? I want a clear answer to that. If so, I would only plead for appeasement. This government will not go by a hair’s breadth to the right or to the left from what they consider to be the right way of dealing with the situation, justice to the individual or the group.

“Another word is thrown up a good deal, this secular state business. May I beg with all humility these gentlemen who use this word often to consult some dictionary before they use it. It is brought in at every conceivable step and at every conceivable stage. I just do not understand it. It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But, it is brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done, so on, and so forth. We have only done something which every country does, except a very few misguided and backward countries in the world. Let us not refer to that word in the sense that we have done something very mighty.” (Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume 10; pages 398-401.)

The Congress was pledged to secularism since its birth. The Sangh Parivar, in its various avatars, opposed it and opposed the freedom movement itself. The Supreme Court put the imprimatur of its approval of “secularism” as part of the unamendable “basic structure” of the Constitution when it heard a batch of petitions on the imposition of President’s Rule in the States. The one in which it commented on secularism was the one that challenged the validity of the Centre’s dismissal of BJP-ruled States after the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.

S.R. Bommai & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. was decided by the Supreme Court on March 11, 1994, ((1994) 3 Supreme Court Cases). In a bench of nine judges, seven judges held secularism to be part of the basic structure. They were A.M. Ahmadi, P.B. Sawant and Kuldip Singh with Ratnavel Pandian concurring; K. Ramaswamy and Jeevan Reddy with S.C. Agrawal concurring.

Justice Ahmadi said: “Notwithstanding the fact that the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were added in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment, the concept of secularism was very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy. The term ‘secular’ has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined. By this amendment what was implicit was made explicit. The Preamble itself spoke of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. …I am, therefore, in agreement with the views expressed by my learned colleagues Sawant, Ramaswamy and Reddy, JJ, that secularism is a basic feature of our Constitution” (pages 77-78).

Justices Sawant and Kuldip Singh held: “Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The acts of a State government which are calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism, as enshrined in our Constitution, can lawfully be deemed to give rise to a situation in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution” (page 149). Justice Ramaswamy said: “The Constitution has chosen secularism as its vehicle to establish an egalitarian social order. I am respectfully in agreement with our brethren [P.B.] Sawant and [B.P.] Jeevan Reddy, JJ, in this respect. Secularism, therefore, is part of the fundamental law and basic structure of the Indian political system to secure to all its people socio-economic needs essential for man’s excellence and of [sic] his moral well-being, fulfilment of material prosperity and political justice”(page 170).

What Justices Jeevan Reddy and S.C. Agrawal noted should educate Rajnath Singh. “The significance of the 42nd (Amendment) Act lies in the fact that it formalised the pre-existing situation. It put the matter beyond any doubt leaving no room for any controversy. In such a situation, the debate whether the Preamble to the Constitution is included within the words ‘the provisions of this Constitution’ is really unnecessary. Even if we accept the reading of Shri Jethmalani, Preamble is a key to the understanding of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The 42nd (Amendment) Act has furnished the key in unmistakable terms.” He added: “The fact that a party may be entitled to go to people seeking a mandate for a drastic amendment of the Constitution or its replacement by another Constitution is wholly irrelevant in the context. We do not know how the Constitution can be amended so as to remove secularism from the basic structure of the Constitution. Nor do we know how the present Constitution can be replaced by another; it is enough for us to know that the Constitution does not provide for such a course—that it does not provide for its own demise” (pages 236-237).

In his judgment, Justice Sawant quoted from the BJP’s Manifesto, which read thus: “BJP firmly believes that construction of Sri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan is a symbol of the vindication of our cultural heritage and national self-respect. For BJP it is purely a national issue and it [sic] not allow any vested interest to give it a sectarian and communal colour. Hence the party is committed to build Sri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan by relocating superimposed Babri structure with due respect.”

Justice Sawant noted that: “(ii) Leaders of the BJP had consistently made speeches thereafter to the same effect. (iii) Some of the Chief Ministers and Ministers belonged to RSS which was a banned organisation at the relevant time. (iv) The Ministers in the Ministries concerned exhorted people to join kar seva in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. One MLA belonging to the ruling BJP in Himachal Pradesh made a public statement that he had actually participated in the destruction of the mosque. (v) Ministers had given public send-off to the kar sevaks and had also welcomed them on their return after the destruction of the mosque. (vi) The implementation of the policy pursuant to then … of the RSS was to be executed by the Ministers who were themselves members of the said organisation. (vii) At least in two States, viz., Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, there were atrocities against the Muslims and loss of lives and destruction of property.”

To no one’s surprise, Justice J.S. Verma, (Justice Yogeshwar Dayal concurring), studiously remained silent on the aspect of secularism. He delivered the majority judgment in the Babri Masjid case in which he went out of his way to make gratuitous remarks which would support the Hindu case. The Bench split along communal lines. The two judges of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow who decided the Babri Masjid case copiously quoted from Justice Verma’s “helpful” judgment.

The day after Rajnath Singh initiated the debate, Prime Minister Narendra Modi replied. What he said is of absorbing interest: “In the year 2009, I was the Chief Minister of a State and when sixty years of the Constitution were completed then we had put the copy of the Constitution on the back of an elephant with grace and dignity. We had taken out a procession and the Chief Minister walked on foot before the elephant so as to make the people aware about the great importance of the Constitution. We had celebrated the completion of the sixty years of the Constitution in such a manner in Gujarat as I was the Chief Minister there. Therefore, we fully understand the value of our Constitution.” This impressive ceremony has no precedent in the annals of the celebrations of any Constitution.