Date : 03/10/2023

Relevance: GS Paper 2 - Polity- Constitution

Keywords: Hind Swaraj, Drafting Committee of the Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar Vision, Aurobindo Vision, Purna Swaraj

Context-

India is undergoing a transformation, shedding the vestiges of its colonial past. Notably, the grand Parliament building designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker has made way for Bimal Patel's modern reinterpretation. The country is also embracing the name "Bharat" more frequently, challenging the historical dominance of "India." While names and buildings are evolving, the question arises: should the Constitution change too? If so, in what manner, and under whose guidance?

Early Constitutional Ideas - Hind Swaraj:

When we contemplate India's Constitution, our thoughts often hark back to 1950 when it came into effect. However, the genesis of constitutional ideas in India predates this significant moment. In 1908, Mahatma Gandhi presented a profoundly original, homegrown vision of what the Constitution should be. Gandhi firmly believed that true "swaraj" or self-rule necessitated the decolonization of the Constitution. For him, achieving independence without transforming the nature of governance would result in "English rule without the Englishman" or "Englistan" instead of Hindustan.

Gandhi envisioned a Constitution rooted in ancient village republics rather than a centralized government in Delhi. His economic model focused on self-sufficiency through local production and trade. He advocated that unity should stem not from constitutional guarantees but from a shared commitment among Indians to build a nation together.

Gandhi entrusted Shriman Narayan Agarwal with the task of drafting a constitution based on these principles, resulting in the "Gandhian Constitution for Free India" in 1946. However, this document was more of a moral code than a legal framework, raising questions about how loyalty to the state would be demonstrated and enforced.

Transition to Ambedkar's Vision:

Gandhi eventually distanced himself from the constitution that bore his name due to its impracticality. In 1947, he played a pivotal role in persuading Rajendra Prasad to appoint B.R. Ambedkar as the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. Ambedkar had a distinct vision for India's Constitution, one that differed significantly from Gandhi's.

Ambedkar believed that India required a strong state capable of maintaining law and order throughout the nation. He envisioned state intervention in managing the economy and controlling industries for the common good. In contrast, Gandhi championed self-sustaining villages reliant on agriculture and cottage industries. Ambedkar's vision aimed to eradicate centuries-old issues like feudalism, sectarianism, and casteism through fundamental rights to life, liberty, and equality for every individual. Gandhi, however, believed that change could not be achieved merely through policy documents like a constitution; it required individuals to transform themselves.

Although Gandhi vehemently disagreed with Ambedkar's vision, he recognized its broad consensus across party lines. Consequently, he chose not to push for his ideal constitution at that time.

Revisit the foundations of the nation's Constitution

The Constitution of India, adopted on 26 November 1949 and enforced on 26 January 1950, bears historical significance tied to the Lahore session of the Indian National Congress in 1929, where the call for "complete independence" or Purna Swaraj was made. The observance of 26 January as Purna Swaraj Day continued until India achieved independence in 1947.

The Constitution's preamble serves as a blueprint for India, encompassing ideas such as sovereignty, democracy, republic, liberty, justice, equality, and fraternity. Additionally, the term "secular," introduced during the 42nd amendment, held a unique interpretation by the constitution makers, distinct from contemporary public policies in areas such as education, minority rights, religious institutions, and electoral politics.

These ideas trace their origins to a civilization different from India's own. A closer examination of the constitutional assembly debates reveals substantial variations in the understanding and conceptualization of these ideas among its members. While it may seem that these differences signify diversity, freedom of thought, or multiculturalism, a more in-depth analysis suggests otherwise.

Indian culture has been profoundly shaped by Rishis, seers who perceive truths transcending the realms of body and mind. Sri Aurobindo's perspective on India's colonization underscores the shock inflicted when a dynamic and creative civilization encountered a state of relative inactivity, leading to mechanical imitation and selective acceptance of external influences. Distinguishing between the good and the bad aspects of foreign cultures has limited practical utility in terms of ideas and institutions.

India's path forward should involve organic growth, and rediscovering its spiritual ideals from within. As Sri Aurobindo articulates, living in harmony with one's inner self and expressing one's true essence, swadharma, is paramount. Through this, India can assimilate foreign ideas from a position of strength and apply them holistically, not just for its benefit but for the betterment of humanity—a responsibility repeatedly emphasized by spiritual masters.

A Constitutional Moment?

Today, India finds itself in a state of flux, similar to the situation in 1908 when Gandhi penned "Hind Swaraj." This presents an opportune moment to articulate new constitutional ideas for India. These ideas should be founded not only on the existing Constitution crafted by B.R. Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly but also on the radical Gandhian concepts, and Aurobindo Concepts that were previously overlooked.

Conclusion

This suggestion does not advocate for a return to pre-modern thinking, as some Gandhian ideas may appear. Instead, it invites us to revisit the fundamental question that Gandhi and Other Indian Thinkers posed: What kind of constitution can truly deliver good governance to India? The urgency of enacting a constitution during the tumultuous period of 1947-1950 meant that this question was left unanswered. Seventy-five years later, it is time to address it. Constitutions, unlike names and buildings, do not and should not change overnight. However, this does not preclude them from evolving in response to the changing needs and aspirations of a dynamic nation.

In the context of decoloniality, India should avoid regressing to an imaginary golden age. Attempting to turn back the clock would be futile and confined to mental constructs. The ideals enshrined in the preamble, rooted in an individualistic era dominated by empiricism, have led to untenable institutions and dogmatic policies. Blind adherence to outdated principles has ceded space for critical thinking and imagination to anarchic forces.

The solution lies in transcending mental colonialism, embarking on an evolutionary leap, and reinvigorating the spiritual truths that once underpinned Indian civilization. This involves molding liberalism, individualism, and rationalism in the light of ancient Indian wisdom, ushering in a new era of holistic progress.

Source - The Hindu