Lies, half truths and evasions: Amit Shah’s symbolic appropriation and material destruction of the Ambedkarite Constitution
By PUCL COMMENTARY
The statement by the Union Home Minister, Amit Shah during a debate in the Rajya Sabha marking 75 years of India’s Constitution, referencing Dr Ambedkar has given rise to a much needed debate on what Ambedkar means for contemporary India and the political forces who are seeking to appropriate his legacy? In the course of his speech Shah said, ‘It has become a fashion to say Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar. If they took god’s name so many times, they would have got a place in heaven’.
The characterisation of the repeated invocation of the name of Ambedkar as a ‘fashion’ combined with the sarcastic mode of delivery, seems to belittle what Ambedkar means both to the Dalit community as well as those seeking to take forward the inspiration of the Constitution. It also highlights the contempt in which both the BJP and RSS hold those who seek accountability from the rulers while upholding the Indian Constitution.
There have been strong and vociferous protests over this perceived insult to Ambedkar from both political parties, Dalit groups, student groups as also those committed to the defence of the Constitution.
The protests, at a very instinctive level end up reading the political unconscious behind Shah’s speech as being at heart hypocritical, cynical and contemptuous towards the ideals which Dr. Ambedkar stood for and which underlie the Indian Constitution.
If one analyses Shah’s entire speech, it is heavy in symbolism while completely ignoring the substantive contributions of Ambedkar to the Indian Constitution. Thus Shah claims credit on behalf of the BJP for erecting memorials to Ambedkar at places significant in his life journey, which Shah designates as five pilgrimage sites in Mhow, Delhi, Mumbai, London and Nagpur. However, apart from the politic of symbolism at which the BJP is a past master, does it have any real fidelity to the ideals which motivated Dr. Ambedkar?
It bears noting that Dr. Ambedkar himself was an iconoclast who was not interested in memorials. He preferred that the money be instead spent on public works like libraries or support to educational institutions like colleges!
Shah’s speech was a targeted attack on Nehru as ignoring the contributions of Ambedkar and sought to make much of the differences between Nehru and Ambedkar which led to Ambedkar’s resignation from the Nehru cabinet. While there were differences between Nehru and Ambedkar on policy choices, priorities and strategy, there were also deep points of agreement on the fundamentals which are embodied in the Constitution of India.
Going back to the drafting of the Indian Constitution, the process begins by Nehru moving the Objectives Resolution on 13th December, 1946, which becomes the precursor to the Preamble. The part of the Objectives Resolution, which goes on to become the Preamble reads:
“WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India justice, social, economic and political; equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law; freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality”.
If one reads this text, one realises that two vital concepts are missing, namely dignity and fraternity. Aakash Singh Rathore in his book, ‘Ambedkar’s Preamble’ argues that it was Ambedkar’s initiative which results in the addition of the words dignity and fraternity, thereby strengthening a document which originates with Nehru. If one looks at the contribution of Ambedkar to the Preamble, one realises that Ambedkar essentially works with a Nehruvian text and strengthens it immeasurably. The question which Shah should answer today, is whether he and his party are indeed comfortable with the language of fraternity and dignity, which are Ambedkarite contributions ? In fact, in the ten plus years they have been in power apart from the symbolic politics of building shrines, what have they done to take forward the Ambedkarite ideals of both fraternity and dignity? The sheer and continuing rise in violence against Dalits across India and the continuing hold of caste hegemony and discrimination contradicts any claim to achievement of social justice in the country.
The difference Ambedkar has with Nehru on the Objectives Resolution is that he feels that it is ‘disappointing’ as it ‘does not go far enough’, even though, ‘Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’ is ‘reputed to be a Socialist’. Although Ambedkar wanted a stronger articulation of socio-economic rights in the Resolution, he is in agreement with Nehru on the fundamental values underlying the Preamble. Dr. Ambedkar in his response to Nehru’s speech, notes that the resolution ‘reminds one of the Declaration of the Rights of Man’ and ‘to repeat it now as the Resolution does is, to say the least, pure pedantry. These principles have become the silent immaculate premise of our outlook. It is therefore unnecessary to proclaim as forming a part of our creed.’ In his understanding, even in ‘our own country which is so orthodox, so archaic in its thought and its social structure, hardly anyone can be found to deny its validity.’
The question for the BJP and RSS is whether they see these principles of ‘equality, freedom and dignity’ (as Ambedkar did) as ‘silent immaculate premise of our outlook’ ? Does the BJP/RSS accept that these principles are valid even in our country which is ‘orthodox’ and ‘archaic in its thought and its social structure’? In short does Amit Shah accept the challenge to Sanatana Dharma posed both by the mover of the Objectives Resolution Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar? Or does the BJP want to follow Dr. Ambedkar in his critique of the Resolution and want a more socialist articulation ? Or does the truth lie in the fact that the BJP is completely opposed to both Nehru and Ambedkar, because it wants the ‘archaic social structure’ to continue undisturbed because it is a part of Sanatana Dharma?
Dr. Ambedkar’s key contribution to the concept of human rights is to assert that the social is a source of oppression and religion is the source of the social. Faith in a religion which oppresses needs to be annihilated. Ambedkar in his preface to ‘Who were the Shudras’ states that there are ‘five definite classes of Hindus’. ‘There is a class of Hindus who are known as orthodox and who will not admit that there is anything wrong with the Hindu social system. There is class of Hindus who believe in the Vedas and only in the Vedas. There is a class of Hindus who admit that the Hindu social system is all wrong, who hold that there is no necessity to attack it. There is a class of Hindus for whom Swaraj is more important than social reform. The fifth class of Hindus are rationalists who regard social reform as of primary importance, even more important than Swaraj.’
Where does the BJP stand on this Ambedkarite classification of Hindus into five classes? Amit Shah, the BJP and the RSS undoubtedly fall into the first class of Hindus who in Ambedkar’s words are ‘orthodox and will not admit there is anything wrong with the Hindu social system.’ This is the class of Sanatanists who Ambedkar fought against his whole life. He was fully cognizant of the dangers of the ‘orthodox’ viewpoint and his famous summation of the philosophy of the RSS was that, ‘If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality & fraternity. It is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.’
This statement ties in to an understanding of why the philosophy of the Constitution was fundamentally opposed to the ideals of the propagators of Hindu Raj, the RSS. Liberty, equality and fraternity which are the ideals which animate the Constitution of India are untenable within the Hindutva framework. For the RSS it is not freedom but conformity which is of value, it is not fraternity but absorption of the minority into the worldview of the majority which is important and it is not equality but a caste order marked by graded inequality which is the ideal.
So the protestors, intuitively and quite brilliantly read the deep meaning of the statement by Amit Shah more perceptively than a mere superficial reading would have revealed. Amit Shah and the BJP are past masters at selective quotation with the aim of appropriation and domestication. The speech by Shah when he tries to blame Nehru for Ambedkar’s resignation from the Cabinet is one such example.
Shah puts the blame for resignation on Ambedkar’s difference with Nehru on foreign policy, on Article 370 and on not doing enough for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The assertation that Ambedkar was opposed to Article 370 and hence sought to resign is not borne out by the text of his resignation letter and hence can only be called a lie manufactured by the Sangh ecosystem and dutifully parroted by Shah. Reading the resignation letter reveals that Shah has skilfully and deliberately, ignored what Ambedkar himself highlights as the main reason for his resignation, namely ‘the treatment which was accorded to the Hindu Code’, which ‘was killed and died unwept and unsung, after 4 clauses of it were passed.’
With respect to the Hindu Code Bill, Ambedkar’s difference with Nehru was a difference with respect to strategy and timing. Both Nehru and Ambedkar were united on the idea that the ancient social structure which was Hindu law must be reformed. In fact as Ambedkar says in his resignation speech, ‘the Prime Minister, although sincere, had not the earnestness and determination required to get the Hindu Code Bill through.’
It is a historical fact that one of the reasons which contributed to the delay in the reform of Hindu law were the vociferous protests and demonstrations against the Hindu Code Bill by the RSS, Hindu Mahasabha and groups affiliated with it and especially of its leaders like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. In fact the RSS-linked periodical Organiser in 1949 clearly stated that, ‘We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu. We condemn it because it is a cruel and ignorant libel on Hindu laws, Hindu culture and Hindu Dharma.’
So Amit Shah must clarify as whether he is one with Dr. Ambedkar’s passionate commitment to the reform of Hindu law ? Does he find palatable Ambedkar’s statement in his resignation speech that, ‘the Hindu Code was the greatest social reform measure ever undertaken by the legislature in this country’ and that ‘to leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap.’?
Does he agree that Sanatana Dharma which consisted of practices like Sati, prohibitions on widow remarriage, no possibility of divorce and other regressive practices. should have been reformed? Or is he with his ideological mentors and opposed to any tampering with the ‘ancient social structure’ that is Hinduism?
Amit Shah through a mixture of lies, half truths and evasions is seeking to appropriate the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar. We must thank the protestors for calling out Shah’s cynical attempt at paying symbolic homage to Ambedkar while continuing to kill by a thousand cuts, the Ambedkarite Constitution.
The nationwide protests on Shah’s remarks mark a point of wider awakening, regarding the threats to the Indian Constitution on its 75th anniversary posed by the same Hindutva forces which in 1950 opposed Ambedkar’s attempts to reform Hindu law through the Hindu Code Bill. It is up to all those who believe in the ideals for which Dr. Ambedkar fought for so passionately to join in the defence of the Constitution.