The issue of the deletion of the preamble from the NCERT (National Curriculum Framework for School Education) textbooks raised by the Congress president led to a heated exchange in the Rajya Sabha. Underlying this seemingly routine exchange is the significant political development of the re-emergence of the constitution within the popular realm, as a symbol of nationalism and hence as an object of political contestation. This has forced the Hindutva discourse to reconfigure its relationship with the constitution which has always been marked by a fundamental tension, and therefore has been tactical in nature.
From condemnation to tactical acceptance
On November 25, 1949, when Ambedkar, delivered his now-fabled ‘Life of Contradictions’ speech in the Constituent Assembly; he defended the constitution against multiple criticisms from across the ideological spectrum. At the time, the foremost Hindutva ideologue M. S. Golwalkar rejected the constitution for two reasons: first, that it was a borrowed document; “a cumbersome piecing together of provisions from western countries, which had nothing which could be called our own”; and second, it did not spell out the idea of the nation, or as he said, “it did not define our national mission or our keynote in life”.
Also read: BJP-RSS Has Always Wanted to Change India’s Constitution
However, contrary to his claim, it was precisely the radically different idea of the nation articulated within it which forced the then politically marginalised forces of Hindutva to get into a relationship with a constitutive tension at its heart; one marked by an ideological rejection and a tactical acceptance. This tension manifests itself every time the forces of Hindutva attain state power. It underlay the decision to appoint the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in 2000 as well as in the open calls for the need to secure 400 seats to amend the constitution in the recently concluded general elections. These actions are not individual mistakes but a reflection of the tactical position of the constitution within the normative universe of Hindutva.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
The popularisation of the constitution
The constitution has always played an important role in the political process of the country; however, it has been largely restricted to the elite chambers of the judiciary and the executive, seldom venturing into the realm of popular politics. The popularisation of the constitution has taken place in two waves; in the first wave, it was used by the Dalit movement as a symbol of self-respect and justice, which was attached to the figure of Ambedkar.
In the second wave, the constitution re-entered the popular discourse as a symbol of nationalism through the course of the anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) movements, where public readings of the preamble became a means to express Indian-ness. It provided the opposition – individuals, parties and movements – with the moral resources, imagery and the language to articulate a powerful alternative to the idea of the Hindu nation; thereby, ending Hindutva’s exclusive claim to the category of ‘nationalism’.
The increasing popularisation of the constitution, especially among the most oppressed masses, has compelled the forces of Hindutva to recalibrate their strategy and symbolically appropriate the constitution. This appropriation is sought to be carried out through performative reverence by the Prime Minister or commemorating the Emergency as ‘Samvidhan Hatya Diwas’ etc.
More than a symbol
However, attempts at appropriation by the Hindutva discourse are fraught with complications for two primary reasons – firstly, the idea of the nation articulated within it is completely antagonistic to the idea of the Hindu nation. The Hindutva discourse conceptualises the nation as an essentialised cultural community which has a timeless, sacred quality and is located in a mythical past. Here, culture is not constructed but a given. The primary unit of the nation is the group and not the individual. Moreover, it conceives our cultural past as pristine and harmonious, defiled by the semitic ‘races’. The major political task is to revive the nation to its past glory and marginalise those who resist cultural homogenisation.
On the contrary, the constitution envisages the nation as a moral community, which is historical and secular in nature. The primary unit of the nation is the rights-bearing individual, and culture is not given but constructed through contestation within the democratic sphere. More importantly, it acknowledges the hierarchical and discriminatory traditions from the past, and therefore, locates the nation in the future – not something to be revived but realised, not for the sake of glory but for justice. Secondly, while Hindutva is always eager to undertake the symbolic appropriation of the memory of freedom fighters like Gandhi, Patel and Bose, the constitution is a living document. It is the necessary condition for the emancipation of those who have been oppressed and excluded for millennia.
Over the last seven decades, the interface between democracy and the constitution has transformed it from a mere code of governance to a popular political symbol which tethers the nation to a moral commitment to justice. Therefore, unless the practitioners of Hindutva honestly confront their past and engage in a moral and ideological course correction, attempts to appropriate the constitution through empty theatrics will always remain insufficient.
Anshul Trivedi has a PhD in political science from JNU and is currently a Congress worker. He tweets at @anshultrivedi47.
