The ‘discussion’ on the Constitution in Parliament has shown how different versions of history can exist, based on ideological perceptions and varied points of view. Interpretations of the word secularism, for instance, differ to the extent that one may wonder if they are speaking about the same thing. One member questioned how a Prime Minister owing allegiance to the Constitution could take part in a religious function – an obvious reference to the Ayodhya ‘Pran Pratishtha’. Indeed, the makers of the Constitution discussed this at length – making the distinction between the western concept of division of state and church, and the Indian principle of ‘Sarvdharma Sambhav’ – respecting all belief systems. The later insertion of the word in the Preamble indicated the desire to separate rather than include. It is a reflection of how ‘secular’ parties wished to distance themselves from Hinduism to seem open to the minorities. It is another matter that the effort now is to claim a better understanding of Hinduism than the proponents of Hindutva.
Another interesting element is the claim of the present ‘Indian National Congress’ to be the inheritor of the composite legacy of the original Congress. This is despite the fact that it splintered numerous times and the present outfit by no means represents the original, all-encompassing organisation that had generations of individuals as leaders from differing backgrounds with enormous intellectual capacity and learning. Today, the party merely represents those who follow in the footsteps of Pt Nehru, whose leadership, and that of his daughter, Indira, took a singular path inspired initially by Fabian Socialism and then by the Soviet model. No wonder, Mahatma Gandhi had advised the dissolution of the original Congress, because it was a movement too diverse in nature to be a political party. Today, it is reduced to being a family run organisation, a fact acknowledged most recently by none other than former Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar.
There is also lack of clarity regarding the concept of Union of States. The way it is spoken of by members of the opposition is as though these were independent units that came together to form the union. That is more in the nature of a federation. Most states did not even exist in their present form at the time of Independence and are basically, at the present, creations of the Constitution – formed on the linguistic principle.
It would be good if politicians got their facts right because they would then be able to do their jobs better.
