AN animated discourse is raging across the country. The discussion on the Constitution in the Rajya Sabha witnessed an outburst by Amit Shah which could be considered unthinkable even a few years back. However, RSS-BJP, having tasted blood, now believes it is high time to go for the final kill. The democratic secular republic, which came into existence as the culmination of the anti-imperialist freedom struggle and which was institutionalised in the Constitution, has remained a granite-like wall of resistance to the RSS project of a sectarian and fascist Hindutva state.

It has become abundantly clear that despite the BJP’s electoral success and the formation of its coalition government for the third time in succession, with all constitutional offices in their control and being at the helm of a number of state governments, the BJP’s thirst for burying the Constitution and pursuing the goal of establishing a Hindutva state cannot be quenched. There is also a sense that the Indian nationhood, born out of the independence movement premised on the principle of ‘unity in diversity’ which embraced an inclusive, federal, multicultural polity, can be substituted by a religious identity-driven nationhood based on Hindutva, where, as Golwalkar suggested, non-Hindus would be ‘second-class citizens.’ This is a new definition of nationhood that would deny the principle of diverse but equal citizenship for all citizens.

The entire exercise to create the post-independence Indian Constitution was fundamentally secular, where God and the divine remained in the realm of private belief and had no decisive influence on the State and its organs. This principle is now under vicious attack.

Ironically, BJP’s earlier attempts were to undermine the entire independence struggle and substitute the significance of Republic Day on January 26th with Constitution Day – November 25th, the day in 1949 when Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, as the chairman of the Constitution drafting committee, presented the committee’s draft to the Constituent Assembly for its adoption. BJP’s enthusiasm for highlighting Dr Ambedkar’s role in drafting the Constitution was aimed at belittling the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in the establishment and adoption of the Constitution. Any misunderstanding about BJP’s love for Ambedkar which was essentially nuanced to target Nehru, is now clear.

Those familiar with BJP’s ignominious record of doublespeak would find it difficult to be deceived by any genuine sense of commitment to either Ambedkar or the Constitution.

WHAT SHAH’S REMARKS IMPLY?

The aggressive and sarcastic tone employed by Shah, stating that it had become a fashion to chant Babasaheb’s name, carries a mocking undertone. He continued in the same mocking vein, suggesting that such repeated chanting would lead them to the seventh heaven in their communion with God. This completely distorts and denigrates Ambedkar’s entire effort, where God had no role to play in the Constitution or its working scheme. The attempts were clearly to bring in the social hierarchy-driven Brahminical order, where the final salvation lay in the individual’s communion with God.

This unadulterated exercise to provide legitimacy to Brahminism-driven social order and the laws of Manu need no speculation. It is also clear that this was no chance coincidence. Amit Shah was expressing the well-recorded animosity of RSS towards the Indian Constitution and Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. His remarks represent a fundamental opposition to the basic principles of the Constitution. This constitutes an assault to reverse the basis of social and gender equality, which form the foundations of the Constitution.

HINDUTVA’S SECTARIAN VISION

Shah’s belittling of Ambedkar’s monumental contribution to India’s constitutional framework, which is the bedrock of India’s democratic principles, is apparent. While the concept of God is personal and a matter of individual faith, the Constitution, drafted by Ambedkar, governs the entire nation regardless of personal belief. Linking the remembrance of Ambedkar to gutter-level abuse distorts his legacy.

Ambedkar, as the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, dedicated his life to challenging the deep-seated social hierarchies that dominated India’s caste system. His contribution was to lay the foundations for a just society rooted in equality and social justice. To equate this with a passing trend undermines the enduring significance of this legacy. The RSS has sounded ambivalent about Ambedkar’s legacy as a direct contradiction would adversely impact electoral and political expediency. The hierarchical and exclusionary principles that they espouse can no longer remain camouflaged.

Historically, Hindutva forces have been at odds with constitutional principles which Ambedkar championed. Savarkar’s observations offer critical insight into the ideological rift. Savarkar was blunt in calling the Constitution “un-Indian” while eulogising Manusmriti – the ancient law text for steering the constitutional process. The same views were unambiguously expressed by RSS on November 30, 1949 in its mouthpiece, Organiser. They claimed that the new Constitution lacked “Bhartiya” elements and was “alien” to the cultural and religious ethos of the Indian people. Therefore, it is this RSS penchant for Manusmriti over the Constitution that underlines a profound ideological divide between Ambedkar’s vision of a secular democratic state and the Hindutva forces’ preference for a theocratic state rooted in ancient patriarchal Hindu laws. Manusmriti’s promotion of caste-based discrimination and the subjugation of women is in direct contradiction to the inclusive and egalitarian principles embedded in India’s Constitution. It is therefore no surprise that Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself claims that India has been a mother of democracy for over five thousand years, highly influenced by the caste social system.

WHAT AMBEDKAR STOOD FOR?

Ambedkar's thoughts evolved through his experiences of enduring social discrimination in the early years of his life, combined with the formal training he received during his higher education and his study of functioning constitutional democracies across the world, particularly in modern, evolved democracies. This unique combination of lived experience and intellectual rigor made Ambedkar well-suited to address the massive challenges faced by a newly independent India as it embarked on creating a modern, democratic, and secular nation.

One of the British prime ministers of the time, Anthony Eden, acknowledged the enormity of the challenge faced by India's new leadership in building structures within a society shaped by centuries of civilizational assimilation. The sheer size of the population and the rich tapestry of diversity – spanning languages, cultures, nationalities, and religious beliefs – made the task formidable. Eden aptly described it as a "stupendous exercise."

In sharp contrast to the RSS's charge that the Constitution was "un-Indian," Ambedkar's work was rooted in a profound understanding of the caste-driven social hierarchy and gender discrimination. Hindutva forces, unable to ideologically counter Ambedkar's efforts to create a democratic, socially just, and secular republic, mobilised against him. Even on November 25, 1949, while presenting the draft Constitution to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar emphasized: "We have now given ourselves the Constitution where one man has one vote. But we are still a long way from achieving a system where one man will have one value."

As Nehru’s Law Minister, Ambedkar faced the monumental task of steering the drafting of the Constitution despite strong opposition from socially conservative forces. After successfully accomplishing this, his next priority was to consolidate its foundational principles through legislation. The outcome was the drafting of the Hindu Code Bill, which sought to reform Hindu personal laws, particularly regarding gender equality in matters of property and succession.

This effort enraged conservatives, led by the RSS and Hindutva forces, who organised widespread mobilisations against Ambedkar. In a notorious incident at Delhi's Ramlila Ground, effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burned. The crux of their opposition lay in the Bill's aim to assign equal status to women in matters of property and inheritance rights. Nehru, under immense pressure, compromised on the original text of the Bill, leading to Ambedkar's resignation from the cabinet.

These historical facts expose the BJP's doublespeak. Ambedkar's primary ideological battle was against the RSS's vision. His grievance with Nehru and the Congress was limited to their failure to fully embrace the egalitarian principles of the Hindu Code Bill. Fundamentally, Ambedkar's ideological critique was directed at the RSS and Hindutva forces – not Nehru or the Congress. This episode underscores the hypocrisy of BJP leaders like Amit Shah and Narendra Modi, who now attempt to appropriate Ambedkar's legacy while undermining the very principles he stood for. The RSS-BJP agenda represents a complete reversal of Ambedkar's vision and the egalitarian ideals that guided the Constitution-making process.

In recent years, Ambedkar has emerged as a pivotal figure for democratic and secular opposition in defense of the Constitution. His photographs were prominently displayed during the massive farmers' protests against the three agricultural laws that sought to empower corporations at the expense of the agricultural sector. Ambedkar has also become a symbol of resistance in the struggles of other marginalised and democratic sections of Indian society. The deeply Indian nature of Ambedkar's contributions to the evolution of a democratic and secular republic is being rekindled.

The ideological underpinnings of this debate can no longer be ignored by the Hindutva forces. In the past, the RSS adopted a more nuanced approach, driven by political expediency, to win over sections of society that had suffered for centuries under Brahminical hierarchy. Having made significant electoral gains, Hindutva leaders like Amit Shah now feel emboldened to launch a direct assault on Ambedkar's legacy. Shah’s recent remarks are neither careless nor accidental; they represent a calculated political move towards establishing a Hindutva vision of India. Narendra Modi has also jumped into the fray, attempting to obscure the real reason behind Ambedkar’s assertion and the 'Manusmriti Dahan' campaign.

In this context, it is the duty of democratic and secular forces to unmask the ideological project of the RSS-BJP. Defending Ambedkar and the Constitution is an integral part of the broader struggle to safeguard democratic and human rights, social and gender justice, and the unity of all Indians, irrespective of religion, caste, or creed. Left parties have committed to playing a key role in this endeavour.