1st 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.
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.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें