Latest news with #BalGangadharTilak
The Hindu
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
How different constitutional drafts imagined India
India's path to becoming a republic was paved with a range of constitutional visions articulated by diverse political thinkers and movements before the adoption of the 1950 Constitution. Between 1895 and 1948, various drafts were proposed reflecting contrasting ideologies — from early liberalism to Gandhian decentralism to radical socialism. These five key constitutional drafts that preceded the final Constitution offer insights into differing interpretations of sovereignty, governance, economic justice, and cultural identity. Early constitutional visions The Constitution of India Bill, 1895, attributed anonymously but often linked to early nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, was one of the earliest efforts to frame a constitution for self-rule within the British Empire. Containing 110 articles, this draft proposed representative government, individual rights, legal equality, and a clear separation of powers. It emphasised civil liberties such as freedom of speech, the right to property, and equality before the law, setting forth a legalistic and liberal vision inspired by British constitutional models. It was more an aspiration for dominion status than a call for complete independence. In contrast, M.N. Roy's Constitution of Free India: A Draft (1944), created under the Radical Democratic Party, was grounded in the philosophy of radical humanism and advocated a participatory form of democracy. Roy envisioned a federal India composed of linguistically organised provinces and promoted popular sovereignty as the bedrock of governance. His draft introduced the right to revolt as a safeguard against tyranny and featured a robust Bill of Rights encompassing civil and socio-economic guarantees. Citizens' committees were proposed to ensure grassroots participation, making Roy's vision strikingly ahead of its time in its emphasis on decentralisation, transparency, and social accountability. This document went well beyond traditional liberalism, promoting direct democratic control and economic equity. A distinctive feature of Roy's draft was its rejection of parliamentary sovereignty in favour of a constitutionally entrenched republic where citizens, not legislators, were the ultimate locus of power. Roy's insistence on institutionalising political education, through mechanisms such as citizens' committees, highlighted his commitment to transforming subjects into active citizens. The draft was also unique in its clarity and precision: the Preamble defined the republic as a 'free, secular, federal, and democratic' polity, and the structure of government envisioned checks against bureaucratic centralism through provincial autonomy and public participation. Importantly, Roy's draft placed economic and social rights on equal footing with civil liberties — anticipating the eventual Fundamental Rights–Directive Principles split in the 1950 Constitution. Yet unlike the non-justiciable nature of the Directive Principles, Roy's socio-economic rights were enforceable and binding. Homogenous yet secular The Constitution of the Hindusthan Free State Act (1944), associated with nationalist right-wing circles such as the Hindu Mahasabha, presented a sharply contrasting perspective. It proposed a unitary state structure and declared India a sovereign 'Hindusthan Free State,' emphasising cultural unification through one language, one law, and one national culture. Yet, contrary to prevailing assumptions, the draft did explicitly guarantee religious freedom and equal treatment across castes and creeds. It affirmed freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion subject to public order and morality. It barred the State from endowing any religion or discriminating based on religious belief. The draft also explicitly rejected any state religion for the Hindusthan Free State or its provinces and prohibited the use of public funds for sectarian purposes. These provisions underscore a commitment to formal secularism and non-discrimination in public employment and education, despite the document's culturally homogenising tone and emphasis on national unity. The juxtaposition of these liberal guarantees with an overarching nationalist framework reflects the tensions within the ideological thrust of the draft. In addition, the 1944 draft was one of the few to contain an explicit reference to the right of secession, stating that provinces could opt out of the Union under certain conditions — an unusual feature given its otherwise unitary orientation. It also mandated the state to promote 'moral and spiritual values,' thus embedding a civilisational mission into its constitutional logic. Its provisions for emergency powers and the duties of citizens echoed a strong state-centric ethos, while still including democratic processes such as direct election to the legislature and regular judicial review. Decentralism to socialist democracy On a very different note, the Gandhian Constitution for Free India, drafted in 1946 by Shriman Narayan Agarwal with a foreword by Mahatma Gandhi, sought to ground India's constitutional framework in indigenous traditions and moral values. This draft was built upon Gandhi's principles of non-violence, trusteeship, and rural self-sufficiency. It proposed a confederation of self-sustaining village republics (gram swaraj) as the basic unit of governance. Rejecting both industrial capitalism and Western legalism, the Gandhian model envisioned decentralised, minimalist governance led by ethical self-regulation rather than law enforcement. With its strong focus on khadi, agriculture, and cottage industries, it aimed to create a self-reliant, spiritually grounded republic, though critics found it impractical for governing a complex modern state. Strikingly, however, the draft included a provision for the right to bear arms — a somewhat ironic inclusion in a constitution guided by Gandhian non-violence. Article 6 of the draft proclaimed that 'every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Legislature,' revealing a pragmatic concession to the need for self-defence or resistance, even within a pacifist framework. This dissonance between the ideal of ahimsa and the constitutional recognition of arms underscores the tensions inherent in attempting to reconcile ethical philosophy with the imperatives of statecraft. By 1948, the Socialist Party, under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, offered its Draft Constitution of the Republic of India as a counter-proposal to the official draft prepared by the Constituent Assembly. This document was firmly rooted in Marxist and democratic socialist thought, advocating the nationalisation of all major industries, banks, and key services. It called for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and proposed land reforms and workers' control over factories. This socialist draft envisioned a unicameral legislature composed of representatives from key social groups —workers, peasants, and intellectuals — thus rejecting the traditional liberal representative model in favour of a class-based system. It went further to assert that all land and natural resources were national property, and that planning would be conducted by a Central Planning Commission accountable to the legislature. Strikingly, the draft also offered an early commitment to gender equality and prohibited caste discrimination in any form. Civil liberties were acknowledged, but the document prioritised economic democracy, with socio-economic rights taking precedence over procedural safeguards. While it was bold in its redistributive commitments, the draft was less detailed in its administrative and judicial architecture, assuming that radical economic transformation would organically support political democracy. Comparative analysis When viewed comparatively, these drafts reflect divergent paths for India's future republic. The 1895 Bill and Roy's draft both championed democracy, but Roy's version expanded it through mechanisms like the right to revolt and participatory governance, departing significantly from the legalistic, elite-centred liberalism of the earlier proposal. Centralisation versus decentralisation is another crucial axis of comparison. While the Hindusthan Free State Act and the Socialist Party draft leaned towards a strong centralised authority to preserve national unity or effect economic restructuring, Roy's and the Gandhian drafts were deeply committed to decentralised governance, albeit in different ways — Roy through institutional federalism and democratic oversight, and Gandhi through autonomous village self-rule grounded in moral authority. Economically, the spectrum ranged from the minimalist and agrarian Gandhian model, to Roy's emphasis on democratic economic planning, to the Socialist Party's full-fledged state socialism. The Hindusthan Free State draft, while largely silent on economic redistribution, offered a more complex picture than often presumed — it prioritised national cohesion but enshrined specific liberal protections around religious freedom and equality. Meanwhile, the 1895 Bill reflected an absence of economic radicalism, concerned primarily with civil liberties and political representation. Cultural and identity politics also played out markedly differently. The Hindusthan Free State draft projected a homogenised, majoritarian cultural identity, in contrast to the pluralistic and secular ethos implicit in Roy's draft and the Socialist Party's vision. The Gandhian model, while rooted in Indian traditions, emphasised unity through moral and communal harmony rather than cultural uniformity. On civil liberties, the 1895 Bill and Roy's draft were strongest, both incorporating detailed rights frameworks. The Socialist Party draft prioritised economic rights over political ones, whereas the Gandhian draft focused more on duties and community values than on formal rights. The Hindusthan Free State draft, while ideologically nationalist, nevertheless provided robust constitutional guarantees for religious freedom and non-discrimination, challenging the assumption that it was devoid of liberal principles. In all, these constitutional drafts capture a vibrant pre-independence debate on the nature of the Indian state, reflecting ideological diversity and differing assumptions about governance, society, and citizenship. Though none of these drafts were adopted wholesale, elements from each filtered into the 1950 Constitution. Roy's ideas on decentralisation and rights, the Gandhian notion of panchayati raj, the Socialist commitment to economic justice, and even the legalistic structure of the 1895 Bill all left their mark. Their greatest contribution, however, may lie in showcasing the democratic imagination at play even before the republic was born — a testament to India's rich constitutional legacy and the multitude of futures it once contemplated.
India Today
a day ago
- Politics
- India Today
Bal Gangadhar tilak jayanti 2025: Date, significance and all you need to know
Bal Gangadhar Tilak Jayanti is observed every year on July 23 to honour the birth anniversary of one of India's most revered freedom fighters and national leaders. In 2025, the day will be celebrated on Wednesday, July 23. This occasion not only commemorates Tilak's life but also serves as a reminder of his contributions to India's independence movement, his social reforms, and his belief in Swaraj as a fundamental IS BAL GANGADHAR TILAK JAYANTI CELEBRATED IN 2025?Tilak Jayanti will be marked on July 23, 2025. This date is fixed annually to coincide with the birth of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, born in 1856 in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. The day is widely observed across Maharashtra and other parts of India through cultural events, public programs, and educational WAS BAL GANGADHAR TILAK AND WHY IS HE CALLED LOKMANYA?Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a pioneering leader in India's freedom struggle. A scholar, lawyer, and journalist, he ignited nationalistic fervour through his writings and speeches. His famous declaration—"Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it"—mobilised masses and reshaped the Indian independence movement. The title 'Lokmanya,' meaning 'approved by the people,' was bestowed upon him due to his widespread popularity and IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAL GANGADHAR TILAK JAYANTI? The Jayanti celebrates not just Tilak's birth but his contributions to India's political awakening. He was among the first leaders to understand the power of mass mobilisation. His efforts in education, journalism, and cultural revival played a pivotal role in uniting Indians against colonial IS BAL GANGADHAR TILAK JAYANTI CELEBRATED?In Maharashtra, particularly in Pune and Mumbai, schools, colleges, and local organisations organise speeches, essay competitions, rallies, and exhibitions. Portraits of Tilak are decorated, his writings are revisited, and his thoughts are shared with younger generations. Public leaders and historians often pay tribute through articles and key contributions included political activism through the Indian National Congress, establishing the Deccan Education Society, and starting nationalist newspapers like Kesari and The Mahratta. He also used festivals like Ganesh Chaturthi and Shivaji Jayanti as tools for social unity and national ARE SOME FAMOUS QUOTES BY BAL GANGADHAR TILAK?Some of his most powerful quotes include:'Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it.''The problem is not the lack of resources or capability, but the lack of will.''Religion and practical life are not different. To take sanyas is not to abandon life.'Bal Gangadhar Tilak's ideology and spirit remain etched in Indian history. As the nation celebrates Tilak Jayanti 2025, it also honours a man who lit the flame of patriotism and fearlessly challenged British rule. His vision of an empowered, self-reliant India continues to inspire leaders, students, and citizens even today.- EndsMust Watch
News18
10-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Maharashtra Declares ‘Ganeshotsav' As Official State Festival
Last Updated: The public celebration of welcoming Lord Ganesh traces back to 1893 when Bal Gangadhar Tilak popularised the festival as a symbol of unity and resistance during colonial rule. In a significant move seen as a cultural assertion, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis-led Maharashtra government on Thursday officially declared over-a-century-old ' Sarvajanik Ganehotsav ' (Ganpati festival) as the 'State Festival of Maharashtra'. Making the announcement in the legislative assembly, Cultural Affairs Minister Ashish Shelar emphasised the festival's deep-rooted connection with the state's social and national history. The public celebration of welcoming Lord Ganesh traces back to 1893 when freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak popularised the festival as a symbol of unity and resistance during colonial rule. 'Ganeshotsav is not just a celebration. It is a symbol of Maharashtra's cultural pride and identity," Shelar said adding that Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav the state was started by Lokmanya Tilak in 1893. 'The very essence of this festival is rooted in social unity, nationalism, the spirit of freedom, self-respect, and pride in our language," he said as quoted by news agency PTI. Shelar further said that the government remains firmly committed to preserving Ganeshotsav's cultural legacy despite previous hindrances such as court petitions aimed at obstructing the celebrations. 'The Maharashtra government is firmly committed to preserving, promoting and celebrating the cultural legacy of Ganeshotsav across the state and the nation. While some individuals attempted to hinder this age-old public tradition by raising various court petitions, trying to obstruct the celebrations, the Mahayuti government acted swiftly and decisively removed all such hurdles," he added. The previous government had imposed curbs on POP (Plaster of Paris) idols, citing guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) but without offering practical alternatives. Shelar said his department approached the issue with a more balanced view. 'We initiated a comprehensive study to explore eco-friendly alternatives and assess whether POP is truly harmful to the environment. We commissioned an in-depth study by the Kakodkar Committee through the Rajiv Gandhi Science Commission. Union Minister Bhupender Yadav approved the findings, and the earlier restrictions were lifted. As per the court's ruling, the making, displaying and selling of POP idols are now permitted," he said. The Maharashtra government has further committed to providing financial assistance, police protection, and necessary infrastructure for Ganeshotsav celebrations across the state, including major cities like Pune, Mumbai, and rural towns. 'Celebrating Ganeshotsav with full enthusiasm is not just a tradition but a core belief of the Mahayuti government. I appeal to all Ganpati Mandals to incorporate themes in their festivities that honour our armed forces, showcase social initiatives, 'Operation Sindoor', highlight the nation's developmental achievements and pay tributes to our great leaders in their decorative displays," Shelar said. Shelar stated that the government is willing to bear the costs required to ensure the festival is conducted with full energy and discipline. He encouraged Ganesh Mandals to create thematic displays that highlight the contributions of the Indian Army, social initiatives, Operation Sindoor, national icons, and internal development work, urging them to celebrate with both enthusiasm and social responsibility. This year, the 10-day Ganpati festival will begin on August 27. view comments First Published: July 10, 2025, 18:46 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Historic crime branch building to be redeveloped
MUMBAI: The ground-plus-two-storey building inside the Mumbai police headquarters in Fort, which has served as the office of the crime branch since 1909, will soon be demolished as it is dilapidated and beyond repair. The crime branch will temporarily shift to the Bawla compound in Chinchpokli and the new building in the commissioner's office till a six-storeyed building comes up in place of the earlier structure, said sources in Mumbai police. 'The building's front-end made of stone is still in proper condition, but the iron beams at the back have rusted and are becoming increasingly unsafe by the day,' a senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer told Hindustan Times. Structural auditors who examined the century-old building recommended that it be demolished because of the weak back-side, he said. 'Besides, the overall strength of the city police force has increased and we are facing a severe space crunch at the headquarters,' the officer said. Apart from the crime branch, the new, six-storeyed building will house the CCTV monitoring centre, the administrative branch and meeting rooms, the officer noted. Historical building When Mumbai was rocked by demonstrations in 1908 in light of the arrest of nationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak on charges of sedition, the colonial government turned its attention to gathering intelligence on political activists. On June 8, 1909, it set up the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which replaced the detective branch and started functioning as an elite organisation placed under the control of a deputy commissioner of police. The two-storeyed building, which was used to house Haj pilgrims for a few weeks, was allotted to the newly-formed CID of the Imperial Police in June 1909 itself. Referred to as the GBCB (Greater Bombay Crime Branch) CID, it investigated crimes of sensitive, political and religious nature – its mandate being largely similar to the current crime branch. The Special Branch, which gathered political intelligence and information about political activists and foreigners visiting India, was carved out of the CID in 1920. It moved to a building close to St Xavier's School around ten years later while the CID continued operating out of its earlier premises. In recent decades, the two-storey building has witnessed the interrogation of several hardened criminals and celebrities. Their ranks include terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab, who had landed in the city along with nine other members of the Pakistani terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba on November 26, 2008 and held the city to siege over the next 72 hours, killing 164 people. Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt was interrogated in the building by former police commissioner Rakesh Maria, in connection with the March 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. Underworld dons Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje aka Chhota Rajan, Arun Gawli, Abu Salem and Ejaz Lakdawala were also detained and interrogated in the building by crime branch officers. The demolition of the building will begin in another month or two, said a senior police officer. 'Some sections of the crime branch will be shifted to a 15-storey building in Bawla Compound in Chinchpokli till the new building is ready,' the officer said. 'However, the joint commissioner police (crime) and some other officers will move to the fourth floor of the new building in the commissioner's office.' The Chinchpokli building houses the office of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) across three floors, the officer added.
Hans India
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Colonisation of Sanskrit words: Distorting Dharma, Rashtra, and the soul of Bharat
Language shapes a civilization's worldview, and Sanskrit, the foundation of Bharat's knowledge systems, embodies millennia of wisdom. Colonial rule distorted key Sanskrit terms through Eurocentric and Abrahamic interpretations, reducing profound concepts like Dharma, Rashtra, and Swarajya to Western equivalents. This linguistic colonization misrepresented Bhartiya thought and disrupted societal structures and public understanding in post-colonial Bharat. 1. Dharma ≠ Religion Perhaps the most damaging mistranslation is the equating of Dharma with 'religion'. In reality, Dharma refers to the cosmic order, righteousness, duty, ethical living, and the path of self-realization. It is not tied to belief systems, deities, or dogmas. Dharma is contextual—what is Dharma for a teacher is different from that of a ruler or a child. It is a code of conduct embedded in time, place, and identity (svadharma). The Abrahamic idea of 'religion', based on exclusive truth claims, worship of a single God, and rigid institutional structures, is fundamentally different. By forcefully mapping Dharma onto 'religion', colonial and missionary forces created deep confusion, codified personal laws based on rigid texts, and set the stage for communal divisions. 2. Rashtra and Desha ≠ Nation or Country The Sanskrit Rashtra does not merely mean 'nation' in the European sense. A Rashtra is a sacred, cultural, and civilizational entity rooted in Dharma and shared spiritual values. It is not bound by geopolitical boundaries but by a consciousness—Bharat has been a Rashtra long before it became a 'nation-state'. The European model of a nation—emerging from treaties, colonialism, and power politics—views the state as a legal and administrative structure. This model was imposed on Bharat, diminishing its deep-rooted civilizational unity based on spiritual and cultural coherence, not political uniformity. Similarly, Desha simply refers to land or region, and was never a fixed nationalistic construct. By equating Rashtra and Desha with 'nation' or 'country,' we began to measure Bharat using foreign yardsticks, erasing the soul from the body. 3. Swarajya ≠ Freedom The word Swarajya, made famous by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and later echoed by Sri Aurobindo, was not just political independence. Swa-rajya means 'self-rule' at both individual and collective levels. It implies inner sovereignty—the mastery of one's senses, mind, and actions—as well as freedom from external domination. Colonial powers reduced Swarajya to mere political 'freedom', akin to European notions of liberty or civil rights. But Bharatiya thought considers freedom incomplete unless it is accompanied by Swatantrata (self-dependence) and Atma-nirbharta (self-realization and self-sufficiency). Today, even after political independence, the absence of Swarajya in intellectual, cultural, and economic spheres reflects a deeper bondage. True Swarajya begins with cultural decolonization. 4. Sanskriti ≠ Culture Sanskriti refers to refinement, inner evolution, and civilizational maturity. It comes from the root 'kr' (to do) with the prefix 'sam' (well) — meaning 'well-crafted' or 'refined behavior and thought.' Sanskriti embodies values, traditions, ethics, arts, sci ences, and collective memory rooted in Dharma. The English term 'culture' is often limited to external expressions—art, music, food, fashion, or festivals. It is secular, often aesthetic, and lacks the depth of inner evolution that Sanskriti demands. By substituting Sanskriti with 'culture,' we risk trivializing the soul of Bharatiya civilization, reducing it to 'cultural programs' or tourist-friendly 'heritage' rather than a way of life shaped by spiritual philosophy and lived wisdom. 5. Darshan ≠ Philosophy Darshan literally means 'to see' or 'vision'. In Bharatiya tradition, it refers to experiential systems of viewing reality—not speculative philosophy but intuitive insight into the nature of existence. The six schools of Darshan (Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vedanta) are both logical and experiential. Western 'philosophy' derives from philo (love) and sophia (wisdom), but is often academic, analytical, and detached from practice. When Darshan is translated as 'philosophy,' the spiritual and experiential core of Bharatiya knowledge is lost. For instance, Yoga is not a 'philosophy' or 'exercise' routine—it is a Darshan, a living system to experience and attain liberation (moksha). Reducing Darshan to speculative thought undermines its transformative potential. 6. Jāti ≠ Caste Jāti refers to community, often based on occupation, locality, and shared customs. It was never a static or rigid birth-based system. With thousands of jātis across Bharat, the system was fluid, and social mobility was possible. The British censuses and legal codes rigidified jāti into 'caste'—a term borrowed from Portuguese casta, meaning breed or race. This racialized the Indian social structure and created a hierarchical system that aligned with colonial control mechanisms. The distorted caste system we see today is a colonial construct, not a native one. By fixing jātis into permanent social categories, colonizers divided our society to rule it more easily. This division still exploited today for political gain. 7. Karma ≠ Fate Karma means action. It is a law of cause and effect, empowering individuals to shape their destiny through their actions, thoughts, and intentions. It places moral and ethical responsibility on every being. Colonial translators, unfamiliar with the concept, portrayed Karma as 'fate' or 'destiny'—a passive acceptance of suffering. This misinterpretation painted Bharatiyas as fatalistic, submissive people who accepted oppression as karmic justice. In truth, Karma is not about helplessness but accountability. The colonial view undermined agency and created the illusion that Bharatiya society was inherently submissive. 8. Guru ≠ Teacher A Guru is not just a teacher, but a remover of darkness (gu = darkness, ru = remover). The Guru leads the disciple on a spiritual journey, imparting not just knowledge but wisdom, transformation, and inner awakening. Western education views the teacher as an instructor, often limited to subject matter expertise. The colonial system replaced the sacred Guru-shishya parampara with formal classroom models, devoid of emotional bonding, spiritual connection, or ethical training. 9. Moksha ≠ Heaven Moksha is liberation—freedom from the cycle of birth and death, realization of the Self, and unity with the infinite consciousness (Brahman) which is the ultimate goal. 'Heaven' in Abrahamic faiths is a reward for belief and good conduct, often a physical paradise. By equating moksha with heaven, the colonial mindset turned a deep philosophical goal into a simplistic post-death reward. The colonization of Sanskrit terms was not accidental; it was a deliberate act of erasing indigenous worldviews and replacing them with Western frameworks. This has led to decades of misunderstanding among foreigners including Bharatvasis. Correcting the colonial distortion of Sanskrit terms requires educational reforms, responsible media and academic usage, active efforts by cultural institutions to decolonize vocabulary, and a shift in public discourse beyond colonial binaries. Reclaiming the true essence of words like Dharma, Rashtra, Sanskriti, and Swarajya is not just about language, it is key to Bharat's civilizational revival through authentic reinterpretation and not mere revivalism. (The writer is an Expert, Creative Economy)
