On November 26, 2023, a nine-foot-tall statue of B.R. Ambedkar was installed in the premises of the Supreme Court of India on the occasion of Constitution Day.
Ironically, the architect of the Indian constitution had to wait for 75 years after independence for a statue to be erected in his honour. All this while, a taller statue of Manu (11 feet) – whose teachings are against the basic structure and values of the constitution – was unveiled on the premises of the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan high court way back in 1989.
In the 1970s, veteran Ambedkarite leader Dadasaheb Gaikwad started his efforts to push for the installation of Ambedkar’s statue within the parliament complex. It was given heed only after 56 years. In contrast, it took hardly 23 days to install Manu’s statue in the Rajasthan high court, similar to the implementation of reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the upper castes.
The prompt installation of the statue of Manu and the reluctance towards Ambedkar can be seen as a metaphor for the polity and society of post-independent India, which seems to show a continuity rather than a rupture after 1947.
The story of the existence of Manu’s statue can be seen as a glorification of undemocratic and oppressive Brahmanical values, sustaining all weathers, institutions, and governments of democratic India, which is slowly substituting Ambedkar from within. This is also a story of the victory of Manu’s India over the vision Ambedkar aspired for the country.
B.R. Ambedkar’s statue in the premises of the Supreme Court of India. Photo: X@ambedkariteIND
Manu’s Bar and Bench
On February 10, 1989, Padam Kumar Jain, the president of the Rajasthan High Court Officers’ Association, proposed installing Manu’s statue in the court’s premises as part of a “beautification plan”.
If beautification was the goal, why didn’t Jain consider an Ambedkar statue, is an irrelevant question. Immediately, just 23 days after this proposal, on March 3, 1989, the proposal was approved.
At that time, Shiv Charan Mathur of the Congress was the chief minister of Rajasthan; Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister, and Justice E.S. Venkataramiah was the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Why didn’t this move seem objectionable to any of them?
In opposition to the installation of Manu’s statue – which was considered a stain on the dignity and values of India’s Dalits, women, Shudras and working classes – the awakened Dalit community slowly began to protest. Hence, on July 28, 1989, a full court sitting of the Rajasthan high court unanimously decided to remove the statue.
However, immediately, Acharya Dharmendra, a leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against it. The high court quickly accepted this PIL for hearing, and in August 1989, a stay order was issued against its own full sitting. Not only that, it also instructed that any further hearings in this case should be conducted only by a division bench, including the chief justice of the high court.
Since then, the stay order and Manu’s statue have remained on the premises of the high court. And the case itself has acquired the notoriety of the longest pending PIL in the history of the Rajasthan high court.
The most recent hearing on this case happened in 2015. Over 300 Brahmin and ‘upper’ caste lawyers had rushed from various courts to attend the hearing. As A.K. Jain, an advocate for the Dalit groups, tried to draw the judges’ attention to the anti-Dalit, Shudra and women verses in Manusmriti, these ‘upper’ caste lawyers started a commotion inside the court premises, leading to the postponement of the hearing. It has not been resumed since.
In the meantime, several Dalit organisations and Bahujan Samaj Party leaders have been demanding the removal of Manu’s statue. On October 8, 2018, two Ambedkarite women activists from Aurangabad, Maharashtra – Sheelabai Pawar and Kanta Ramesh Ahire – were arrested for throwing black paint on Manu’s statue.
But nothing could remove Manu’s statue.
Also read: The Laws of Manu and What They Would Mean for Citizens of the Hindu Rashtra
In Rajasthan, governments alternate between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party in every election. The BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)’s stance has often justified the caste system. However, why didn’t the Congress party, which claims to be pro-constitution, put its weight behind the litigation to remove Manu’s statue when it came to power?
The answer lies in a statement by Congress leader and head of its manifesto drafting committee, Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma. According to Sharma, a former president of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association:
“When the statue of Manu was installed in the high court, it wasn’t for any particular caste. Manu is regarded as the first person to have come up with a written law. If there is any downside to that law, it is open to amendments as is done in our constitution. The statue shouldn’t be associated with any caste.”
The irony is this statement of the Congress leader resembles closely with the statement of VHP’s Acharya Dharmendra, who had filed a petition against the removal of Manu’s statue. He had said: “It was a great idea to have a Manu statue inside the high court as he was the first person anywhere in the world to draft a law. Those who oppose him are ignorant of Manu’s philosophy.”
How is the Congress’s understanding of Manu or the constitution different from the RSS, which claims Manusmriti to be the world’s best constitution?
If there is any difference, isn’t it enough to preserve Ambedkar’s ideals and the constitution from the onslaught of Manu, the RSS and the BJP?
Indifference of SC?
What has the Supreme Court, responsible for protecting the constitution, done in this matter?
When the case demanding the removal of Manu’s statue from the Rajasthan high court premises had been deliberately delayed for more than 25 years, several Dalit activists and organisations filed a PIL in the top court.
However, on February 24, 2023, the division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sundaresh, dismissed the petition, saying:
“We do not find any good ground and reason to entertain the present writ petition as a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and hence, the writ petition is dismissed.”
This decision allowed Manu’s statue to remain. And the same court has unveiled the statue of Ambedkar on its own premises.
Manu and Manusmriti represent injustice, social inequality, caste hierarchy, and patriarchy. Ambedkar and the constitution stand for equality, compassion, socio-economic justice, and fraternity.
How can both coexist? How can both be symbols of the Indian judiciary that is tasked with protecting the constitution?
The Hindutva forces have reinterpreted the constitution and the history to suit the ideals of Manusmriti while at the same time idolising Ambedkar, They have perhaps made this possible.
Also read: Symbols Serve Oppressors, That Is Why Manu Must Fall
Constitution Day or Vedic Day?
Their latest stratagem was last year’s order by the Narendra Modi government to celebrate November 26, Constitution Adoption Day, around the theme of ‘India – the Mother of Democracy’. Along with this order, the Indian Council of Historical Research provided a conceptual note, which claimed that the khap panchayats were institutions of democracy.
In fact, Ambedkar, in his work Annihilation of Caste, had given a call to destroy the Vedas, Puranas, and Manusmriti, if Hinduism were to truly become a religion, and if a Hindu were to become a genuine human being, and if India was to become a genuine democracy.
Far from demolishing the ideals of Manusmriti, Manu’s statue stands on a court premises – with neither political parties nor the higher judiciary seemingly finding any contradiction in this.
