Today, some in positions of power in India are questioning those rules – which makes them important to reaffirm.
This month we celebrate another republic day which is 72nd anniversary The entry into force of our constitution, By doing so we affirm the essence of Indian nationalism, which has been amended in the adopted constitution after almost three years of debate, and in the process indirectly reflects the ‘idea of India’ that emerged from both the nationalist movement and its institutionalization in the republic. Sincerely salute.
a gift and a vision
The idea of India as a modern nation based on a fixed concept of human rights and citizenship, strongly supported by due process of law, and equality before the law, is a gift of the Constitution. The earlier concepts of India took their inspiration from mythology and theology. The modern idea of India, despite the mystical influence of Tagore and the spiritual and moral influences of Gandhiji, is a strong secular and legal construct based on the vision and wisdom of our founding fathers, particularly (in alphabetical order) Ambedkar, Nehru, and Patel. . The Preamble of the Constitution is the clearest enumeration of this vision. In its description of the defining features of the Indian Republic and its concept of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, it strongly declares that law will be the basis of the national project.
In my view, the role of liberal constitutionalism in shaping and undermining India’s civic nationalism is central to the broader story of the growth and modernization of Indian society over the last century. The main function of any constitution is to constitute: i.e. to define the rules, common norms, values and systems under which the state will function and the nation will develop. The manner in which the ideals contained in that document were implemented and developed in the spirit of civic nationalism during the first seven-and-a-half decades of India’s independence determined the kind of country we are.
to shape a new citizen
Every society has an interdependent relationship with the legal systems that govern it, which is complex and, especially in our turbulent times, has been consistently and vocally contested. Through this interaction, communities become societies, societies become civilizations and civilizations acquire a sense of national and historical character. Dr. BR Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, not only understood this but clearly expressed the hope that the Constitution would help in shaping a new type of citizen. The great constitutionalist said, ‘I do not want our loyalty as Indians to be affected in the slightest by any competing loyalty, whether that loyalty stems from our religion, our culture or our language. I want everyone to be Indian first, Indian last and nothing but Indians.’
It was a bigger challenge than India being in any other country. He did not just mention the elements – religion, culture and language – that divided Indians and seemed to fly in the face of the idea of shared citizenship. As Ambedkar was well aware, there was a specter of caste and social hierarchy. In politics we will recognize the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we, because of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long will we continue to live this life of contradictions?’ Ambedkar famously asked.
include lower class
Ambedkar’s eloquent attack on discrimination and untouchability expanded the reach of Indian thought to include the country’s vast, neglected lower class for the first time. Ambedkar – a product of Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and principal of the prestigious Government Law College in Bombay – was deeply troubled by the iniquity of the caste system and the fear of many Dalits that national independence would only lead to a social and upper castes. political dominance. An opponent of caste tyranny and as a nationalist, he believed that Dalits should support India’s independence from British rule, but he should pursue his struggle for equal rights within the framework of the new constitution. which he had a major hand in drafting.
Despite his own pessimism, Ambedkar’s solution has worked. As I pointed out at this point, the Constitution’s most important contribution to Indian civic nationalism was the representation centered on the individuals. The establishment of a constitutional democracy in post-colonial India involved attempts to free Indians from the prevailing types of classification and to place each citizen in the realm of personal agency that went beyond the immutable identity provided by birth. In the process the Constitution transcended all the identities that both defined and divided Indians.
The Constitution provided a legal framework for many people to embrace an implicit idea of India as a land. It reflects the idea that a nation can incorporate differences of race, creed, colour, culture, cuisine, conviction, cuisine, dress and custom, and still rally around a democratic consensus. This consensus centers around the simple principle that in a democracy under the rule of law, you don’t really need to agree all the time—except for the basic rules of how you’ll disagree. The reason why India survived all tensions and tensions for three quarters of a century (and which predicted its imminent dissolution in the 1950s and 1960s) is because it agreed on a way to manage without consensus. maintained. Today, some in positions of power in India are questioning those ground rules, and sadly, they now need to be reaffirmed.
rule of law
Indian nationalism is thus the nationalism of an idea, of the idea that I have called a land forever – emerging from an ancient civilization, united by a shared history, sustained by a pluralistic democracy under the rule of law. What binds this whole concept of Indian nationality together is certainly the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution.
After all, the struggle for Indian independence was not just a struggle for freedom from foreign rule. This was a change from the administration of law and order focused on imperial autocracy. This is where the idea of ’constitutional ethics’ was born, which means to achieve desirable goals through constitutional means, to uphold and respect the procedures and structures of the constitution, and to do so in the spirit of transparency and accountability. A national commitment to Legal limits on speech, public scrutiny of government actions, and the exercise of power. Thus independence was to flourish in India.
soul of constitution
Of course, Ambedkar felt that it was entirely possible to distort the Constitution, without changing its form, by changing the form of administration to make it inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Ambedkar argued that constitutional morality is ‘not a natural feeling’. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have not learned it yet. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic. He insisted that the Directive Principles – an unusual feature of the Indian Constitution not found elsewhere – were necessary because although the rules of democracy mandated that the people should elect those in power, the principles affirmed that ‘who Whoever seizes power will not be free to do what he likes with it’.
To remember these basic principles today means to recognize how far we are straying from them at present and to recognize the dangers inherent in the practice of the present government of speaking it by crushing the spirit of the Constitution. This Republic Day, as we gear up for a little more than six months to celebrate the 75th anniversary of our independence, we must remind ourselves, and rededicate ourselves to the ideals that are enshrined in the Constitution. We are behind, on whose entry we all celebrate January. 26.
Shashi Tharoor is a Lok Sabha MP from Thiruvananthapuram and author of 23 books, most recently Pride, Prejudice and Punditry
,