Opinion Mohan Bhagwat’s exaggeration: Ram Temple consecration was not Independence Day

Sovereignty means full freedom. It was derived from the Latin term superānus which means supreme power. In 1791, the French Constitution acknowledged that sovereignty is “indivisible, unalienable and imprescriptible”. As a sovereign nation from August 15, 1947, we are internally free and externally supreme. The RSS chief himself admitted that we got such freedom, that is, bhagya nirdharan, or the power to decide our fate.

According to Article 51A(b), it is the fundamental duty of all citizens to cherish the noble ideals of our freedom struggle. Forget about cherishing the ideals of non-violence, liberty, equality, fraternity, etc. — we are routinely demeaning the efforts of those who sacrificed their lives in fighting the British. It was not easy to fight the mightiest power of the day and that too with non-violence. The refusal to abide by the unjust salt law at Dandi meant that the Indian masses would no longer be bound to obey any unjust law.

In ancient India, there were many different janapadas, and the medieval era too saw the rule of multiple kings. Even at the time of Independence, there were more than 500 princely states in India. By giving the princely states the right to join the Indian dominion, the Indian Independence Act (1947) paved the way for the integrated union of states(Article 1). The suzerainty of His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom lapsed with respect to the Indian Princely states. All the obligations of the British under section 7(a) concerning the Indian territories came to an end and all treaties signed by the princely states, including subsidiary alliances, also lapsed. Section 6 (1) gave full powers to the Indian Dominion to pass laws without any restriction. No law can be considered void on the ground that it was contrary to any law enacted by the British parliament. Under section 6(4), no British parliamentary law can be extended to Indian territories and under section 7(2), the word “Emperor of India” was removed. These provisions went much beyond the narrow idea of “political freedom”.

In addition to the drafting of the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly was performing the duties of the country’s interim parliament as well. We had absolute freedom to make our choices in terms of not just “political freedom” but each aspect of our national life.

Mohan Bhagwat is right in saying that all our dreams did not come true after 1947. We continue to have stark inequalities in our society. There is a huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. On the Global Hunger Index, we are at 105 out of 127 countries; on the Human Freedom Index, we are at 109 out of 165; on the Index of Economic Freedom, we are at 126 out of 184 and on the World Press Freedom Index, we rank 161 out of 180.

In his celebrated work, Annihilation of Caste, B R Ambedkar said, “There should be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.” Do we see such reverence for fellow citizens today? Temple politics has forever polarised our society.

Moreover, even in terms of political freedom, poor people can no longer contest highly expensive elections. There are serious issues with our electoral system and the people’s trust in the Election Commission is fast diminishing. There is no inner-party democracy in our political parties.

The construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya was indeed historic but to describe it as the moment of the country’s true freedom may be an overstatement. At the consecration ceremony, the RSS chief himself had spoken like a statesman. The temple was constructed after the judicial determination of the title under the laws largely given by the British, and not in pursuance of any argument based on cultural or spiritual heritage or nation’s self. To say that the country’s bread and butter problem was intimately connected to the Ram temple movement of the 1980s is also not right. The 2024 Lok Sabha results in Ayodhya and other places related to Lord Ram tell a different tale. In fact, the central narrative of the temple movement, that a Ram temple was demolished, could not be proved. Even the Supreme Court termed the installation of idols in 1949 and the demolition of Babri mosque in 1992 as “egregious wrongs”.

To become a world leader, India must come out of its excessive, newly-invented religiosity and adopt modernity. Let us reject divisive politics and remain wedded to India’s civilisational spirituality. Let our religions construct bridges of solidarity.

The writer is Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Views are personal