PM’s Advisor for new Constitution; Agenda clear

Dr Bibek Debroy is the Chief of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, obviously very close to the centres of power in more sense than one. He recently in an article questioned the continuation of the present Constitution. For him, this is not the same Constitution that was adopted after Independence as it has been amended many times. He averred that since the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive cannot change its basic structure and it has outlived its time, we should prepare for a new constitution. More importantly, he says this Constitution is a colonial legacy and questions various provisions of the same, particularly the values of socialism, secularism, justice, equality and liberty.

The PMO has officially distanced itself from the opinions expressed by Debroy but the purpose of raising doubts and opposition to the Indian Constitution has been raised successfully. But, does the PMO really oppose the view of Dr Debroy? Getting an idea floated for seeking public response or even support is an old game that most politicians play. Indira was adept in it and she mostly used journalists. Several other politicians at local levels do the same to gauge the public mood. Of course, nowadays they are only too brazen and don’t pretend. The BJP leadership is known to be outspoken in such matters. That is why Dr Debroy’s effort to put forth the argument looks silly. The BJP and the RSS leadership have spoken against the existing Constitutional provisions in no uncertain terms.

Already the ideologues and leaders from the Hindu right have been asserting that this constitution is a colonial legacy, based on the Government of India Act of 1935 of the British and does not reflect the Indian values. The right-wing Hindu nationalists were never comfortable with this Constitution, which is not a mere continuation of the Act of 1935 but prepared after painstaking debates for nearly three years and meticulously put forward by the Chief of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution Dr Ambedkar.

The President of the Constituent Assembly Dr Rajendra Prasad and most members of the Constituent Assembly (CA) were the ones who identified with the anti-colonial struggle of the Indian people. It was this struggle which also was crucial in the formation of ‘India as a Nation’. In contrast to those who stood for plural, inclusive Indian nationalism, the religious nationalists stood away from this great struggle and also opposed the values that emerged with this mass movement.

As the Constitution was implemented the unofficial mouthpiece of RSS declared that “Three days after the CA passed Constitution the RSS English organ, Organizer on November 30, 1949, in an editorial rejected it and demanded Manusmriti as Constitution. It read: “But in our Constitution, there is no mention of the unique Constitutional development in Ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the World and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our Constitution pundits that means nothing. “This opposition to the Constitution keeps manifesting itself in diverse ways. It is also related to their concept of decolonization of minds as put forward by RSS General Secretary Dattatray Hosabale: “The Euro-centric ideas, systems and practices, the western world view were still ruling us for decades. Independent nations didn’t shirk them totally.” The agenda is very clear...if we wish to notice it!