going back to the foundation of the republic

Recent Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s speech in Jaipur, while distinguishing between Hinduism and Hindutva, echoes the arguments that have become familiar in recent years, as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) regime has broadened India into a Hindu nation and in turn has been transformed by secularists. has provoked a reaction from But in reality this issue gives rise to a debate that goes all the way to the foundation of the republic, and is central to the questions that our Constitution seeks to answer.

a new understanding

The most important contribution of the Constitution to Indian civic nationalism was the representation centered on the individuals. As the legal scholar, Madhav Khosla, explains in his influential book on legal history, India’s founding moment, the political system of establishing a constitutional democracy in post-colonial India – a land that was poor and illiterate, divided by caste, creed, geography and language, and burdened by centuries of tradition – gave Indians a new sense of authority. Asking to be understood included. Through introducing a new idea of ​​Indianness they would be freed from British imperial autocracy, which saw them as equal agents.

The founders of the republic – recognized Dr. BR Ambedkar as the chairman of the drafting committee of the constitution – chose to impose a liberal constitution on a society that was not liberal, hidden because it was dominated by traditional customs and caste. was surrounded by prejudices related to religion, and social hierarchy. He saw the principles of liberal constitutionalism – state centrality, non-sectarian political representation, and so on – essential to Indian democracy. In keeping with contemporary liberal views, he committed India to a common language of the rule of law, creating a centralized state but establishing a model of representation whose units were individuals rather than groups. It was an attempt to free Indians from the prevailing understanding of their place in society and to place citizens in the realm of personal agency and deliberation that was conducive to self-government.

It was never going to be easy. The Constitution, as Ambedkar pointed out, is the instrument of controlling and controlling state power. The challenge lies in reconciling the restrictions on state power with popular rule – to prevent a provisional majority (since in a democracy, the majority is temporary, although some people forget it) from completely undoing what the Constitution has provided for. . The founders of the Indian republic laid down a concept of democracy that went beyond majority rule. He put politics under the law. As Ambedkar put it, the rights of Indian citizens ‘cannot be taken away by any legislature merely because it has a majority’.

representation base

It is particularly shocking in today’s context that the framers of the Constitution explicitly rejected the notion of religion playing any role in citizenship, arguing that each individual voter exercised agency in the democratic project and It should not be reduced to pre-existing loyalty of religious affiliation. , This was a far cry from the notions that have animated the BJP’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act and his threat to introduce a National Register of Citizens. The constitution did not represent one’s predetermined religious identity but the individual expression of political agency. That’s why the individual vote was so important. Democratic politics could not be confined to the advocacy of predetermined interests.

Also, the constitution recognized group rights, such as the right of religious denominations to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes (Article 26(a)), or the right of a ‘class of citizens’ to be protected. The right to a specific language, script or culture (Article 29(1)). There were also provisions to protect the interests of the Scheduled Tribes (Article 19(5)) and a specific provision in Article 25 which states that a ‘heavy responsibility’ would be placed on the majority to make the minorities feel safe. But although the Constitution recognized groups as having constitutional rights, Justice Dhananjay Y. of the Supreme Court of India. Chandrachud has argued (in his Justice PD Desai Memorial Lecture last year) that it was ‘rooted in the understanding that membership of groups was a unique one. The role of shaping and determining individual identities… in elevating groups as exclusive rights holders as well as empowering state intervention to address the historical injustice and inequality perpetrated by group membership, the makers said. established liberalism within the pluralistic reality of India and The concept of each individual lies at a crossroads between liberal individualism and pluralism... At the time of its birth, the nation was not conceived as a means to encompass and eliminate its vast diversity.’ [emphasis added],

privilege the person

The ability to recognize groups and yet decide the rights of their individual members and the adaptability of the Constitution to the changing realities of national life have effectively made it a vehicle of social change. But letmotiv, from the very beginning, privileged the individual citizen above the group.

It is surprising, for example, that the Constituent Assembly rejected separate electorates, weighted representation and reservation on the basis of religion. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in his capacity as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Minorities and Fundamental Rights, wrote to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Rajendra Prasad, to explain that the discrimination of citizenship on the basis of religion had already been tried in the colonial era and led the division. The answer lay in moving away from a representative structure that considered identity to be stable and stable, and towards a model of citizenship centered on the political participation of individuals. Such a model would allow the categories of majority and minority to be continuously defined and redefined in the fluid sphere of politics and thus would provide the greatest form of protection to all citizens.

main debate

Therefore, the major intellectual divide between the framers of the Constitution was not between those who wanted a united regional India and those who did not; That issue was resolved by partition, which happened soon after the assembly began its work. The main debate in the Constituent Assembly was between those who wanted to emphasize the concept of individual citizenship in India that went beyond immutable identities (such as religion or caste) and those who insisted on Indian nationality as a union of such inalienable identities. was defined as Many nationalists, who argued vigorously outside the Constituent Assembly for a united India, nevertheless thought that India was actually a collection of distinct communities that could flourish together in harmonious coexistence. But the Constituent Assembly, led by Nehru and Ambedkar, went in the opposite direction, deliberately choosing individual citizenship as the root of nationality, with India’s communities overstepping the limits imposed on their members.

Ambedkar made it clear: ‘I do not believe that there is any place for any particular culture in this country, be it Hindu culture, or Muslim culture, or Canari culture or Gujarati culture. There are things we cannot deny, but should not be cultivated as advantages, they should be regarded as disadvantages, which divide our loyalty and take away our common goal from us,’ he argued. ‘This common goal is to create the feeling that we are all Indians. I don’t like what some people say, that we are Indians first and Hindus later or Muslims later. I’m not satisfied with that… I don’t want our loyalty as Indians to be affected in the slightest by any competing loyalty, whether that loyalty derives from our religion, our culture or our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indians last and nothing but Indians….

divided between two ideas

This fundamental difference of opinion – whether people are Hindu first or Muslim first, or Indian first – continues to haunt our politics today. The nationalist movement was divided between two views; Those who saw religious identity as the determinant of their nationality, and who believed in an inclusive India for all, regardless of faith, where rights were guaranteed to individuals rather than religious communities. The former became the idea of ​​Pakistan, the latter became the idea of ​​India. Pakistan was created as a state with a dominant religion, a state that discriminates against its minorities and denies them equal rights. But India never accepted the logic that partitioned the country: our freedom struggle was for all, and the newly independent India would be for all. Turning India into a Hindu nation would be a denial of the essential concept of India, the India that our founders fought to liberate.

Shashi Tharoor is a third-time Member of Parliament (Congress) representing Thiruvananthapuram and, most recently, an award-winning author of 23 books including Pride, Prejudice and Panditri.