Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, while speaking in the House on the constitution on the occasion of its 75th anniversary very strikingly quoted V.D. Savarkar’s utterances dismissing the Indian constitution. He also mentioned the burning of Manusmriti by B.R. Ambedkar on December 25, 1927 for sanctifying the monstrous caste system which, in his words represented “an ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt”.
According to Gandhi, Savarkar said, “The worst thing about the constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable after the Vedas for our Hindu nation and from which our ancient times have become the basis for our culture, customs, thought and practice. This book, for centuries, has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Today Manusmriti is law.”
That quote demolished the specious claim of defence minister Rajnath Singh in the Lok Sabha that the constitution of India bears the imprint of the vision, among others, of Ambedkar, Savarkar and Bhagat Singh. It is indeed preposterous on the part of Rajnath Singh to have simultaneously upheld the inclusive vision of Bhagat Singh and the divisive policies of Savarkar anchored in the plank of Hindutva.
What Rajnath Singh did in vainly equating the vision of Ambedkar and Savarkar has been done earlier by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who in his several addresses from the ramparts of Red Fort, on the occasion of independence day, juxtaposed with equal emphasis the names of Gandhi, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Ambedkar with Savarkar and said that they “devoted all their life on the path of duty towards the nation.”
Also read: Modi Declares Intent to Enact UCC, Rahul Gandhi Draws ‘Constitution vs Manusmriti’ Parallel
What these leaders have done in flagging with equal measure Ambedkar and Savarkar is part of the familiar pattern of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to falsely project Savarkar as a figure who deeply influenced the freedom struggle and his vision inspired the framers of the constitution when they were drafting it.
The way Rahul Gandhi exposed the hollowness of Modi’s and Rajnath Singh’s claim concerning reflection of Savarkar’s vision on the constitution bears the deep impress of Ambedkar’s scathing attack in his book, Pakistan and Partition of India, published in 1946, on Savarkar’s constitution.
Ambedkar wrote in that book, “Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it.” While stating that Jinnah wanted India to be partitioned into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, Ambedkar referred to the vision of Savarkar who while preceding Jinnah in advocating two nation theory, Hindus as one nation and Muslims as another one, wanted those two nations to coexist within one territorial entity with Hindu nation occupying dominant position over Muslim nation.
Ambedkar then wrote that Savarkar’s constitution “…shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation.”
“But Mr. Savarkar in advocating his scheme,” sharply remarked Ambedkar, “is really creating a most dangerous situation for the safety and security of India”. “But it,” he warned, “can never ensure a stable and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the simple reason that the Muslims will never yield willing obedience to so dreadful an alternative.”
The framework of the constitution advocated by Savarkar was against the notion of equality and equality of opportunity for all people regardless of their religious or caste identities or the language they spoke. He derived such a framework, according to Ambedkar, from the examples of the erstwhile old Austria and old Turkey where one major nation and other minor nations were subject to one constitution with the major nation enjoying superior position over the minor nations.
Savarkar took a stand that what was prevailing in Austria and Turkey of that time could be replicated in India. Ambedkar wrote with consternation that Savarkar wilfully ignored the ruination suffered by those two nations in adopting such a scheme of domination within a single territorial unity under one constitution and yet prescribed the same for creating a “Hindudom.”
Ambedkar on Hindu Raj as a calamity
What Ambedkar very sharply said about Savarkar in 1944 resonated in Rahul Gandhi’s quote concerning Savarkar’s aforementioned remarks on the Indian constitution.
In fact it is instructive to note that Ambedkar in the book Pakistan and Partition of India very presciently remarked, “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 and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”
Remedy against Hindu Raj
Very insightfully, he provided a remedy to prevent the possibility of Hindu Raj by uniting together the Muslims, the non-Brahmins and the Depressed Classes. “Herein lay,” he asserted, “the most fruitful method of achieving communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims and of destroying the danger of a Hindu Raj.”
Rahul Gandhi’s repeated emphasis on conducting a caste census is a step in the direction of achieving such unity on the plank of social justice. It is a remedy to the majoritarianism plank of the Hindutva forces posing a danger to India as a whole and providing in the words of Ambedkar “a dreadful alternative”.
S.N. Sahu served as an officer on special duty to former President K.R. Narayanan.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
