Latest news with #ConstituentAssembly
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Shashi Tharoor's book offers a partisan polemic on the Constitution
Our Living Constitution: A concise introduction & commentary Published by Aleph Books xiv+118 pages ₹499 School syllabi in the mid-1950s had a subject called civics. It dealt with administration systems and processes and the principles they were based on — quite clearly, the Constitution. The prescribed texts were well-written, with simple explanatory diagrams of reporting and hierarchical relations. The reason for recalling this is that nearly the entire first half of Shashi Tharoor's latest work under review resembles those texts, but is not as succinct or lucid as those volumes, probably committee-written, were. Mr Tharoor rambles on stressing repeatedly the uniqueness of India as a nation as well as its constitution writing exercise. Dr B R Ambedkar is invoked in reverential terms (as he should be) and quoted extensively. All of this is common knowledge, especially so in the last six months as we observed the 75th anniversary of giving ourselves the Constitution. In case you missed it, a quick reference to Wikipedia will tell you all that Mr Tharoor does in the first 47 pages of his rather slim volume, and with much less verbiage. One does not have to wait long for the reason for Mr Tharoor to retell this oft-told tale. Phrases such as the idea of India and India as a well-established secular state keep appearing page after page. References to select members of the Constituent Assembly (the author often calls them Founding Fathers, a term usually reserved for the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence, with good reason), most of them belonging to the Indian National Congress, in adulatory terms, abound. In case the reader is still at sea about why this book was written, two chapters entitled 'An alternative idea of India', and 'A challenge to the Constitution' in the middle of the book clear all doubts. Mr Tharoor dwells on the Hindu Mahasabha opposition to the Constitution at the time of its drafting. He also talks of the Hindu-Hindutva ideologues V D Savarkar, M S Golwalkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya and their negative reactions to the Constitution: 'Upadhyaya saw the seeds of division …even in the Constitution's decision to rename provinces as 'states'…he felt the formulation envisaged in the Constitution diluted the sacred idea of a unified Bharatvarsha.' Mr Tharoor suggests that the ideological descendants of these critics, now in power, are still not reconciled to the secular nature of the Constitution. He could well be justified in believing this, but in the absence of any reasoned arguments, this remains just a shibboleth voiced by the current leadership of his party. He glosses over the fact that many senior Congress leaders in the 1940s and 1950s were uncomfortable with Hinduism not being accorded what they considered its due importance in the Constitution and by the actions of the Jawaharlal Nehru governments of the 1950s. The President of the Assembly and later the first President of the Republic, Rajendra Prasad, and a Congress president, P D Tandon, were among such personages. The short point is that unlike universal adult franchise, secularism was not yet an idea whose time had come then. But Mr Tharoor states quite emphatically that secularism was very much an integral part of the Constitution at all times, even though it was expressly inserted in the Preamble only during the Emergency through the 42nd amendment. Mr Tharoor is agitated by the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the National Register for Citizenship and the Waqf Act amendment initiated by Bharatiya Janata Party -led governments in the last five years. He believes they affect the very fabric of the Constitution. Again, this point is vital in any debate on the Constitution, but to Mr Tharoor the existential threat to the Constitution is real and must be fought, which is very much the posture of the Congress. Mr Tharoor cherry-picks his arguments. He quotes the renowned constitutional scholar Dr Gautam Bhatia on citizenship, but not on the overall centralising drift of the Constitution, which tends to favour the government in power. He could have used the dispassionate writings of scholars such as Faizan Mustafa on the recent trio of measures. His tone switches from that of Chicken Little, who feared the sky was falling (the Constitution is under threat!), to the benign soothsayer: 'The Constitution will prevail as long as its spirit survives in the ordinary citizens of India'. That is when the book reveals what it truly is: A polemic on the Constitution, and not 'compelling narrative' about it, as it claims. Stylistically, the book has all of Mr Tharoor's flourishes: Alliterations, long (50+ words) sentences, equally long paragraphs, repetitions of words — all the bugbears an analytical writer is told to avoid. The book does have one plus point: It carries footnotes and citations where they ought to belong, at the bottom of the page. Post-script: One wonders what the author Mr Tharoor who goes to extraordinary lengths to toe the party line feels about the politician Mr Tharoor being excoriated by the same party for his eloquent defence of government policies in the wake of Operation Sindoor!
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Indian Constitution: Chief Justice Gavai Acknowledges Constitution's Role in India's Unity During Crises, ET LegalWorld
The Constitution has ensured that whenever the country has faced a crisis, it has remained united and strong, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai said on Saturday. The CJI was addressing a function after the inauguration of advocate chambers and multi-level parking at the Allahabad High Court here. "When the Constitution was being made and its final draft was presented before the Constituent Assembly, at that time some people used to say that the Constitution is too federal while some used to say that it is too unitary. "Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar had replied that the Constitution is neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," CJI Gavai said. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App He said India has been on the path of development after independence due to the Constitution."Today we see what is the condition of our neighbouring countries. And India is making a journey towards development after independence. Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution," he the 75-year journey of the Constitution coming into effect, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary have contributed a lot in bringing social and economic equality, he said."It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary, everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI told the to the land reforms, he said some laws were brought under which land was taken from the landlord and given to the landless persons."These laws were challenged from time to time. Before 1973, the Supreme Court's view was that if there is a conflict between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights, then the Fundamental Rights will prevail."Gavai said, "In 1973, a decision of 13 judges came that the Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution and for this, it can amend the Fundamental Rights, but it does not have the right to change the basic structure of the Constitution."The Chief Justice of India said that this bench had also said that both the Fundamental Rights and the Directives Principles are the soul of the of these are the two wheels of the golden chariot of the Constitution, if you stop one of these wheels, the entire chariot will said, "I have always been saying that the bar and the bench are two sides of the same coin. Unless the bar and the bench work together, the chariot of justice cannot move forward."Today the Allahabad High Court has given a good role model for the whole country in which the judges vacated 12 bungalows for the bar (for the construction of the complex) and took care of the convenience of their lawyer brothers."
Hans India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Constituent Assembly and the British Influence
As the Vice-President of the Viceroy's Executive Council (equivalent to the position of a Prime Minister) from September 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru played a pivotal role in steering the Constitution's formation. On December 13, 1946, while moving the aims and objects resolution, Nehru acknowledged the British influence on the process: 'The British Government has a hand in [the Constituent Assembly's] birth. They have attached certain conditions. We accepted the State Paper … and we shall endeavour to work within its limits.' Though this statement highlights the constraints under which the Assembly operated, it conceals the 'understanding' between the Congress led by him and the British. Rau's appointment as Constitutional Adviser, likely influenced by his Cambridge education and connection with Nehru, facilitated the creation of a draft that aligned with British preferences to frame the Constitution that maintained continuity with colonial frameworks and thereby perpetuated British legacy. Nehru's role as a political intermediary was crucial in balancing Indian aspirations with British demands, raising questions about whether his actions were driven by pragmatism or a desire to secure political power for himself, especially given his appointment as the Vice-president before independence. Pseudo-secularism and minority appeasement: Nehru's vision of secularism, shared by Patel and others, prioritizes religious minorities like Muslims and Christians, often to the disadvantage of the Hindu majority, and is reflected in Articles 25–30 of the Constitution. These provisions grant minorities rights to establish and manage educational institutions, preserve their cultural practices, and expand their religious demography, while similar protections are denied to Hindus. Damodar Swarup Seth's 1948 critique in the Constituent Assembly argued that recognizing religious minorities as distinct entities undermined the very idea of secularism and national unity, potentially sowing the seeds of another partition. This Nehruvian framework of minority appeasement, continued by both pseudo-secular and pseudo-Hindutva parties instead of equal treatment for all, has sparked resentment about its impact on India's social cohesion. Emergence of the Ambedkar-centric narrative: The narrative attributing the Indian Constitution to Dr B R Ambedkar emerged from a confluence of historical, social, political, and Christian missionary factors. To deflect criticism of the Constituent Assembly's unrepresentative nature and protect Nehru's minority-centric secularism, Congress leaders, including Nehru, allowed the factoidal narrative of a 'Dalit-architected Constitution' to take shape. This framing served to shield the Constitution from scrutiny and silence critics by invoking Ambedkar's identity as a Dalit leader and symbol of social justice. Ambedkar's visibility in Assembly debates, coupled with his role as Minister for Law and Justice, made him a natural focal point for this narrative. The Ambedkarite movement, which gained momentum after his 1956 conversion to Buddhism, further promoted this narrative to inspire Dalit pride and empowerment. The emotional resonance of a Dalit shaping India's democratic framework amplified his symbolic importance, often at the expense of recognising Rau's technical contributions or Nehru's political leadership. The mischievous misnaming of the 'Committee to Scrutinize Draft Constitution' as the 'Drafting Committee' contributed to the misconception that Ambedkar authored the Constitution. Rau, a bureaucrat without a political constituency, and Nehru, already a towering figure in Indian politics, received less public recognition, allowing the Ambedkar-centric narrative to dominate. Political strategies aimed at wooing Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) further reinforced this narrative through statues of Ambedkar holding the Constitution, roads, colonies, public buildings, spaces, and educational institutions named after him, and media portrayals, such as the 2000 biopic Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, which cemented his image as the Constitution's sole architect and drafter. The narrative's alignment with Dalit empowerment goals further entrenched its dominance. Judicial reinforcement of the narrative: The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in perpetuating the Ambedkar-centric narrative. Statues of Ambedkar holding the Constitution, installed in the Supreme Court (1980) and some High Courts, symbolize his perceived role as the Constitution's architect. The 2025 Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court controversy, where lawyers clashed over an Ambedkar statue, underscores the narrative's emotional and political weight. A registrar's order on April 21, 2025, justified the statue by citing Supreme Court precedent and Ambedkar's role as the 'maker,' despite historical evidence to the contrary. Judicial pronouncements, such as Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), frequently invoke Ambedkar's vision. Constitution Day speeches by Chief Justices often describe him as the 'architect,' reflecting cultural reverence rather than historical accuracy. Judicial training, focusing on case law rather than historical scholarship, and the inaccessibility of primary sources, like Rau's papers or Ambedkar's 1953 Rajya Sabha speech, perpetuate reliance on secondary narratives. The judiciary has reinforced a socio-political context making Ambedkar's legacy sacrosanct, particularly among SCs and STs. Questioning his role risks accusations of casteism, discouraging judges and scholars from challenging the narrative. Political promotion by Ambedkarite groups and government initiatives, such as Ambedkar Jayanti, amplifies this perception, as seen in the Gwalior controversy, where opposition to the statue was perceived as disrespect. Christian missionaries and Article 25: Christian missionaries have leveraged Ambedkar's prominence to promote conversions among SCs and STs, mistakenly attributing Article 25's right to 'propagate' religion to him. This provision was crafted by the Committee on Fundamental Rights, headed by Sardar Patel. Ambedkar's brief engagement with Christianity in the 1930s aligned with the missionaries' social reform agenda, but his 1956 conversion to Buddhism explicitly rejected Christianity's foreign ties. Nevertheless, missionaries continued to highlight his constitutional role to appeal to Dalits, reinforcing the Ambedkar-centric narrative for their own purposes. Restoring truth vis-à-vis Ambedkar-centric narrative: India's national motto, Satyameva Jayate—truth alone triumphs—etched at the base of the national emblem, demands unwavering commitment to historical accuracy. Yet, the pervasive narrative that B.R. Ambedkar was the sole architect of the Indian Constitution betrays this principle, perpetuating a myth that overshadows the collaborative efforts of B.N. Rau, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the 299 members of the Constituent Assembly. To honour the Upanishadic ideal and align public and judicial understanding with historical reality, a concerted effort to restore balance is imperative. Legal curricula must be reformed to emphasise the Constitution's collective genesis, correcting the misleading term 'Drafting Committee' and highlighting Rau's foundational draft and Nehru's pivotal role in shaping its framework under British oversight. Primary sources, including the Constituent Assembly Debates, Rau's papers, Nehru's Aims and Objects Resolution, and Ambedkar's 1953 Rajya Sabha speech—where he rejected sole authorship as a 'hack'—should be integrated into educational programs to foster a nuanced perspective. Archival accessibility must be prioritized to empower scholars, students, and the public with evidence-based insights. The judiciary, too, must uphold truth by avoiding rhetorical claims of Ambedkar as the sole architect, acknowledging the collaborative process in judgments and speeches. By embracing Satyameva Jayate, India can dismantle this false narrative, honouring all contributors to its constitutional legacy and reaffirming its commitment to truth over myth. (The writer is a retired IPS officer and former Director of CBI. Views are personal)
India Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Whenever India faces crisis, Constitution keeps it united and strong: Chief Justice
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Saturday said that whenever the country has faced a crisis, it has remained united and strong, and that the Constitution should be credited for Gavai was addressing a function after the inauguration of advocate chambers and a multi-level parking at the Allahabad High Court here."When the Constitution was being made and its final draft was presented before the Constituent Assembly, at that time some people used to say that the Constitution is too federal, while some used to say that it is too unitary," he "Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar had replied that the Constitution is neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," CJI Gavai said India has been on the path of development after independence due to the Constitution."Today we see what the condition is the condition of our neighbouring countries. And India is making a journey towards development after independence. Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution," he said."It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary, everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI told the InTrending Reel
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Constitution must be credited for keeping country united during crises: CJI
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai on Saturday said that whenever the country has faced a crisis, it has remained united and strong, and that the Constitution should be credited for this. The CJI was addressing a function after the inauguration of advocate chambers and a multi-level parking at the Allahabad High Court here. "When the Constitution was being made and its final draft was presented before the Constituent Assembly, at that time some people used to say that the Constitution is too federal while some used to say that it is too unitary. "Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar had replied that the Constitution is neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," CJI Gavai said. He said India has been on the path of development after independence due to the Constitution. "Today we see what is the condition of our neighbouring countries. And India is making a journey towards development after independence. Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution," he said. "It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary, everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI told the gathering.
