Debate: As the Constitution turns 75, a question is: Does it embody and satisfy the needs of a nation with a rich history, and one that is on the move, or does it have a circumscribed ambit?

                                     1^st   Perspective

Constitution is not at ease with civilization - J Sai Deepak

This analysis captures a deeply thought-provoking tension between civilisational identity and constitutional morality in contemporary Bharat. It critiques the historical continuity of colonial thought into the framework of post-colonial India and raises questions about the efficacy and intent of placing constitutionalism above civilisational consciousness. Here's a detailed reflection on the key ideas presented:

1. The Tussle Between Civilisation and Constitution

The juxtaposition of slogans like "Jai Shri Ram" and "Jai Samvidhan" symbolizes a deeper conflict between civilisational identity and constitutional frameworks in India. This conflict is not new but has been accentuated in modern times, reflecting an inherent unease in reconciling Bharatiya traditions with constitutional ideals that are often seen as rooted in colonial legacies.

Key Points:

• The article suggests that political independence did not result in a psychological or cultural decolonisation.
• Instead, the Indian state, post-independence, entrenched colonial attitudes under the garb of "constitutional morality."
• The adoption of secularism and other preambular values aimed to reform or suppress the native identity, severing the connection between Bharat's civilisational roots and its political framework.

2. The Role of Colonial Continuity in Shaping Post-Independence India

The persistence of colonial condescension in the form of constitutional morality has contributed to a disconnection from Bharat’s indigenous identity. This moral framework, while often heralded as progressive, is portrayed as an instrument to dilute the civilisational ethos of the country.

Key Arguments:

• The colonial project aimed at rendering India rootless; the independent state, ironically, amplified this effort.
• Any attempt to challenge this framework or talk of decolonisation is dismissed as communal or anti-Constitutional.
• Civic nationalism, which prioritises allegiance to the Constitution over civilisational consciousness, is upheld as the only acceptable form of nationalism.

3. Civilisational Consciousness vs. Civic Nationalism

The essay critiques the assumption that civic nationalism, rooted in constitutionalism, can replace long-standing markers of identity such as religion, culture, and language. These traditional markers have been instrumental in group formation and civilisational continuity across millennia.

Key Questions Raised:

• Can civic nationalism realistically supplant traditional civilisational markers, especially in a deeply rooted society like Bharat?
• If such a replacement occurs, would it not strip the society of its sense of self and collective memory, leaving it vulnerable to external influences?
• Are the proponents of secular civic nationalism intentionally promoting historical amnesia to weaken society’s survival instincts?

4. Historical Amnesia and Its Consequences

Using the example of present-day Bangladesh, the author argues that the loss of collective memory and a sense of history can have dire consequences for societal cohesion and survival. The essay cautions against undervaluing community and civilisational consciousness in favour of an immutable constitutional framework.

Key Insights:

• Historical amnesia and the erosion of civilisational consciousness can leave a society bereft of its survival instincts.
• The Constitution should not be positioned as immutable or above the needs and identity of a society, as it risks stifling the agency of future generations to redefine their destinies.

5. The Constitution and Bharat’s Pluralism

The essay challenges the assumption that the Indian Constitution alone preserves Bharat's pluralism and prevents it from descending into anarchy like its neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Instead, it argues that the dharmic ethos of Bharat's people has played a greater role in maintaining its pluralistic fabric.

Critique of Constitutional Supremacy:

• The presence of a constitution has not prevented coups or minority persecution in neighbouring countries.
• Bharat’s distinguishing factor is its dharmic barometer, which inherently values pluralism and respects constitutional institutions, not the Constitution per se.

6. Reconciling Civilisational Identity with Constitutional Goals

The essay concludes with a call to balance civilisational consciousness with the goals of constitutionalism. It stresses the importance of preserving a society’s sense of self while adapting constitutional frameworks to the needs of the present and the future.

Proposed Approach:

• Recognise the significance of civilisational markers in shaping societal identity and cohesion.
• Avoid treating the Constitution as immutable or sacrosanct, allowing room for evolution that aligns with civilisational values.
• Promote a nuanced understanding of constitutionalism that complements, rather than conflicts with, Bharat’s civilisational ethos.

Conclusion

This critique offers a powerful reflection on the ongoing struggle between civilisational identity and constitutional morality in Bharat. It calls for a reimagining of the relationship between the two, urging a move away from colonial legacies and towards a framework that harmonises civilisational consciousness with the principles of governance. By doing so, Bharat can preserve its rich pluralism and chart a path that respects its past while embracing its future.

 

                                          2^nd Perspective

It looks forward, rooted in civilization - Faizan Mustafa

This insightful critique addresses the evolving discourse on the Indian Constitution, its civilisational context, and its critics. The narrative oscillates between admiration for the Constitution's inclusivity and criticism of its perceived disconnect with India's civilisational heritage. Here's a detailed reflection on the key points raised:

1. The Constitution: A Living Stream

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assertion that the Constitution is a "living, continuously flowing stream" aligns with the idea of its adaptability and its role in reflecting the aspirations of a vibrant nation. However, contrasting voices, particularly from within the Hindutva camp, highlight ideological contradictions.

Contradictory Narratives:

• While some see the Constitution as a colonial imposition severing India’s ties with its civilisation, others like the RSS chief argue that Hindutva reflects constitutional ideals.
• This duality either suggests a deliberate strategy to cater to diverse constituencies or genuine confusion about the Constitution’s value.

2. The Civilisational Context in the Constituent Assembly

Critics who claim that the Constitution undermines India’s civilisational identity overlook the Constituent Assembly’s repeated references to India’s ancient culture and traditions. The Objective Resolution, guided by Nehru, acknowledged India’s 5,000-year-old civilisational journey and its transition to modernity.

Key Insights:

• Leaders like Purushottam Das Tandon and Krishna Sinha rejected the binary of civilisation versus nation-state, emphasizing continuity.
• Syama Prasad Mookerjee, founder of the Jana Sangh, acknowledged that the Constitution derived its legitimacy from the Indian people, not colonial powers.

3. Indigenous Identity and Its Complexity

The assertion that the Constitution ignores Bharat’s indigeneity is overly simplistic. Indigenous identity in India is multifaceted, encompassing not just Aryan but also Adivasi traditions. The Adivasi perspective, represented by Jaspal Singh in the Constituent Assembly, challenged the notion of Aryan dominance and highlighted the democratic practices of indigenous communities predating modern constitutionalism.

4. Constitutional Morality and Dharmic Ethics

Critics often frame constitutional morality as antithetical to India’s traditions, citing judgments like Sabarimala (2017). However, a broader understanding of Indian civilisation suggests otherwise.

Counterpoints:

• Ashoka’s Dhamma: Often viewed as a form of constitutional morality, it promoted righteousness (dharma) over religious imposition, aligning with secular principles.
• Hindu Mahasabha’s Constitution: Its 1944 draft explicitly rejected a state religion, showcasing an early embrace of secularism, arguably more explicit than the Indian Constitution.

5. Borrowing and Innovation in the Indian Constitution

The framers of the Indian Constitution balanced borrowing from global traditions with adapting to India’s unique needs.

Examples:

• Parliamentary Democracy: Adapted from Britain, but with a republican framework.
• Fundamental Rights: Borrowed from the US, but with restrictions tailored to Indian realities.
• Separation of Functions: Instead of strict separation of powers, the Constitution embraced functional separation, resonating with the Lakshman Rekha ethos.

6. Historical Shortcomings and Social Realities

India’s past, though glorious, was marred by inequalities stemming from the caste system and gender disparities. Leaders like Hansa Mehta highlighted the unequal status of women in ancient India. The adoption of Western ideas like individualism was a conscious choice to address these inequalities.

7. Constitution as a Forward-Looking Document

The Constitution, by design, sets the agenda for the future. While rooted in India’s civilisational ethos, it consciously avoided fundamentalism and embraced values like diversity, tolerance, and acceptance.

Philosophical Standpoint:

• Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) justifies the adoption of ideas from global traditions.
• Learning from the past is valuable, but romanticizing or reviving it uncritically risks regressive outcomes.

8. The Way Forward

The article calls for a balanced perspective that:

• Recognizes the Constitution as a dynamic document reflecting both civilisational continuity and modern aspirations.
• Emphasizes inclusivity, diversity, and progress without losing sight of India’s historical identity.
• Challenges narrow critiques that view constitutionalism as a threat to civilisation.

Conclusion

The Indian Constitution stands as a testament to the interplay between civilisational heritage and modern governance. While it draws from global ideas, it remains deeply rooted in the ethos of pluralism and tolerance that define Indian civilisation. Critics must engage with the Constitution not as a relic of colonialism but as a living framework capable of evolving alongside the nation it represents.