Political Diary

New Delhi, 1 December 2015

Speeches On Sale

PLAYING CONSTITUTIONAL GAMES

By Poonam I Kaushish

Yawn, Delhi’s silly political season was ignited last week by two event, a chai pe charcha between Prime Minster Modi and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi on the GST and celebrating the debuting Constitution Day, 26 November. While the Opposition has still to warm-up to the former, the latter had our netas spewing fire at each other in a my-Ambedkar-vs.-your-Ambedkar tu-tu-mein-mein. Never mind the double talk, hypocrisy and rank deception! 

The occasion kick started Parliament’s winter session by a debate in both Houses on what the Constitution meant to them. Predictably, Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s observation that secularism was the most misused in contemporary political discourse set the cat among the pigeons with the Opposition yelling blue murder. None bought his line that being secular meant panth nirpeksh (non-sectarian) not dharam nirpeksh (non-religious) thereby sharpening the political fault lines.

Thundered Sonia, “People who have no faith in the Constitution, who have not contributed to its making, they are now talking about it repeatedly, they are trying to appropriate its legacy. What can be a bigger joke than this?” Surprisingly, a mellow NaMo sounded conciliatory by underscoring the Constitution should not be reduced to I&U as “India first” was the only religion and the Constitution, the only holy book.

We all know the Constitution is supposed to be supreme. But the moot point is: The Constitution only comes into the picture when someone moves court seeking justice? 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?

Namely, “I like the religion that teaches liberty, equality and fraternity”. And do our netagan care a fig leaf about the Constitution which Ambedkar referred to: “If it is patchwork, it is a beautiful patch work”. Or that it knits us into a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic? And seeks to secure for all citizens justice, liberty, and equality? Assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation?

Not at all. If one were to go by the shenanigans in Parliament during the debate wherein all talked at each other and played to the gallery. All, merrily floating on waves of crass opportunism and brazen evasiveness, serenading their captive vote-bank politics to score petty points against rivals.

Think. Many of those who swear by secularism and Dr. Ambedkar are not willing to implement even the secular Article 44 which states: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India”.

Instead, the word itself gets their goat. No matter that this bloated rhetoric about secularism bandied about by every “secular” Party is essentially an inter-Party affair of intra-Hindus. All, wanting to capitalise on the Muslim vote bank.

While the so-called ‘secular’ Parties choose to be deaf-blind-dumb on the Article on the ground that it would interfere with the right of religious freedom and personal laws of religious groups unless they are prepared for change. Secularism is in danger under Modi Raj, they yell. The BJP believes that it would help national integration by removing ideological contradictions.

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) he made two observations: One, the Muslim Personal Law is not immutable and uniform throughout India. Two, he advocated “optional” and “voluntary” common civil code.

Notably, in today’s political climate deliberate distortions of religion are being pursued to suit narrow personal and political ends whereby, Ram and Rahim have been reduced to election cut-outs. Should this make Ambedkar communal, even a Hindu fundamentalist?

Besides, Ambedkar propagated reservation only for ten years. Said he, “I think it is time that we decide that the use of the word ‘caste’ be banned in this country. Reservation too should be done away with because it becomes a hindrance to development.”

However, over the years our netagan have made quotas and queues into a political milch cow. Merrily converting positive affirmation into vote percentages wherein social and economic upliftment is weighed on the scale of vote-bank politics. And merit is a dirty word.

Not satisfied with a benchmark of 50 per cent, set by the Supreme Court, our polity continues to bask in thoughtless adhocism, by hiking the percentage at the drop of a hat. Ranging from 69 per cent in Tamil Nadu to 80 per cent in Bihar and Karnataka. 

True the Government’s fundamental mission is to uplift the poor, educate and provide them equal opportunities. But when education and job reservations are calculated on the basis of belonging to a particular caste or religion per se, it goes against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. It not only divides the people but also harms national unity and fraternity.

Alas, are polity has conveniently forgotten that the Constitution was framed by 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 so-called ‘communal friends and secular enemies’ Parties are conveniently rolled into one when the occasion and issue demands.

And that the Mandal Frankenstein created by our leaders will bite them as the system of caste-based quotas becomes divisive and self-defeating. Reservations are no answer to improving the lot of people and are detrimental to long-term growth.

Regrettably, in today’s politico-social reality, Ambedkar’s sound advice is ignored and even dismissed as an utopian hypothesis.  Article 44 remains a dead letter and reservations continue unabated. For, successive Indian Governments have failed to draw a distinction between politics, caste and religion.

Forgetting, there is no mysticism in the secular character of the State.  The State is neither anti-God nor pro-God.  It is expected to treat all religions and people alike irrespective of caste and ensure that no one is discriminated against on the ground of religion.

Where do we go from here?  It all depends on whether the Government is willing to get rid of its excess baggage of isms and instead bank on genuine secularism and halt the reservation circus. 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 excess baggage of isms. India needs to be taken towards genuine secularism and genuine national integration. 

Time now to stop the spectacle of hypocritical drivel of serenading the Father of the Constitution’s legacy. We need to see actions rather than words. The Constitution should truly be supreme. Else, as Ambedkar accentuated, “If things go wrong, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile”. The ball is in our leaders’ court. What gives? --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)