Political Diary

New Delhi, 11 April 2015

Speeches Are Cheap

DIS’HONOURING AMBEDKAR

By Poonam I Kaushish

Yawn, it’s that time of the year when a lot of noise and fuss is being made about our freedom icons. At one end is the clatter over snooping on the kin of Subhash Chandra Bose by India’s first Prime Minister Nehru. On the other, our leaders fall over themselves to extol the Father of the Constitution Dr Ambedkar. Never mind the double talk, hypocrisy and rank deception!  

Today (14 April) celebrated nation-wide as Ambedkar Jayanti, trust our netagan to make a beeline to profusely garland his statue at Parliament House and elsewhere, huge newspaper advertisements published, even as more trusts were founded in his name and functions along-with seminars held.

More so, in the backdrop of the forthcoming Bihar Assembly polls slated later this year, our leaders led by the Prime Minister are busy eyeing the huge chunk of Dalit votes. Big deal, if the aam aadmi treated it as just another national holiday!

Raising a moot point: Does our polity divided by caste, splintered by religion, riven by political and ideological differences and bereft of statesmen with vision and concern for tomorrow really genuinely believe in Ambedkar’s ideology, “I like the religion that teaches liberty, equality and fraternity”. And a Constitution which knits us into a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic. Assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.

Not at all. The first give-away is their response to enacting Article 44 which states: The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India”.

Even as the BJP plums for it as the Party believes that it would help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideology. Alongside, there cannot be gender equality till such time India adopts the Code which protects the rights of all women.

While the so-called ‘secular’ Parties vehemently oppose the enactment of the Code on the ground that the step would interfere with the right of religious freedom and in personal laws of religious groups unless the religious groups are prepared for change, (sic) Secularism is in danger under Modi Raj, they yell. Read Muslim votes.

The Hindutva brigade went ballistic against the Congress by blaming it for insulting the Father of the Constitution and the God of Dalits by creating deliberate distortions of religion to suit narrow personal and political ends which had vitiated the country, threatening its unity, integrity and solidarity.

Undeniably, Dr Ambedkar was a strong advocate of the Uniform Civil Code. Whereby, according to him there was no connection between religious and personal law in a civilized society. Or why it should be viewed as encroaching on the right of religious freedom? Or being anti-minority?

Pertinently, during the Constituent Assembly debate on Article 35 (now 44) on November 3, 1948, he made two observations: One, the Muslim Personal Law is not immutable and uniform throughout India, contrary to what had been stated in amendments (moved by Muslim members).

Reminding all that up to 1935 the North West Frontier Province was not subject to the Shariat Law instead it followed the Hindu Law in succession and other matters. So much so that it was only in 1939 that the Central Legislature abrogated the application of Hindu Law to the Muslims of the North West Frontier Province and applied the Shariat Law to them. In North Malabar, the Marumakkathayam Law, a matriarchal form of law and not a patriarchal form of law is applicable.

Two, the Article merely proposes that the State shall endeavour to secure a civil code for its citizens. It does not say that after the code is framed the State shall enforce it upon all citizens merely because they are citizens. It is perfectly possible that the future Parliament may make a provision by way of making a beginning that the code shall apply only to those who make a declaration that they are prepared to be bound by it, so that in the initial state the application of the code may be purely voluntary”.

Arguably, in today’s political climate wherein deliberate distortions of religion are being pursued to suit narrow personal and political ends which have vitiated the country and shamelessly has everything to do with vote-bank politics. Whereby, Ram and Rahim have been reduced to election cut-outs. Should this make Ambedkar communal, even a Hindu fundamentalist?

Alas, are polity has conveniently forgotten that the Constitution was framed by their great leaders and each Article was debated and vetted by the top legal brains to ensure that the country’s secular fabric remained intact. Can our polity and Parties truly claim to be secular when all of ‘communal and secular when the occasion and issue demands.

More. Why should a common civil code be viewed as anti-minority? If Hindu personal law can be modernized and a traditional Christian custom struck down as unconstitutional, why should Muslim personal law be treated as being sacred to the secular cause?

Regrettably, Article 44 has remained a dead letter. As things stand both Hindus and Muslims have lot sight of the essentials of their respective religions and are largely misled by bigots and fundamentalists. Worse, even the educated are speaking the language barely distinguishable from that of Hindu-Muslim fundamentalists. Their stock answer to every critique: Religion is in danger.

Should they not support Ambedkar’s middle path of a voluntary civil code. Are they not aware that many Islamic countries have codified and reformed the Muslim Personal Law to check its abuse? Polygamy has been banned in Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran and even Pakistan.

This apart, not many are aware that Ambedkar opposed Article 370 in the Constitution, which gives a special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and it was put against his wishes. History records, him telling Sheikh Abdullah: “You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But the Union Government should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.”

Then Abdullah went to Nehru, who directed him to Dr Ayyangar, who told Sardar Patel to do something as it was a matter of Nehru’s prestige as he had promised Abdullah. Patel got it passed when Nehru was on foreign tour.

In the ultimate, is our polity willing to carry forward and enact Ambedkar’s legacy? It all depends on whether our leaders are willing to get rid of their s excess baggage of isms and instead bank on genuine secularism. But given today’s politico-social reality, Ambedkar’s sound advice is more than likely to be dismissed as an utopia hypothesis.

High time our netas recall and ponder over his wise assertion, “Humans are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Otherwise both will wither and die”. So instead of going through the circus of hypocritical drivel of serenading his legacy we need to see actions rather than words. What gives? ------ INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)