Opinion Salman Khurshid writes: Let the Constitution be free of the plays of power

Faizan Mustafa believes the Constitution looks forward and is rooted in civilisation, and that the Constituent Assembly debates reflected the framers’ deep knowledge of India’s civilisation. He writes, “We are indeed proud of our glorious civilisation that gave birth to the idea of India that underlines protection to, and preservation of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.”

Curiously, both authors can claim to be expressing points of view commonly held by people who see them as nuanced shifts of emphasis, sometimes for analytical reasons and at others to score an ideological emphasis. What is often lost sight of is the fact that our past, as in every comparable civilisation, cannot be described as uniformly applaudable, and our recent past, relatively short compared to the thousands of years of ancient Indian civilisation, cannot be treated as requiring to be ignored in this discussion as irrelevant except when it poses a challenge to a preferred world view. To be frank, every time we speak of our civilisational heritage, we refer to “Indian” in terms of Hindu or Vedic precepts. Periodically, some commentators strive to make a point about the features of the Constitution being unnecessarily borrowed from the West when our ancient systems provided both democracy and the rights associated with it. In the streets of the country, one hears aspirations for a Hindu Rashtra but the attributes and character of such a state are not ever articulated.

Must we accept freedom of conscience and equality under Articles 15 and 16 to be subservient to a way of life with starkly different parameters? Simply complaining about colonial experience seems senseless 75 years after Independence and decades of robust democratic functioning. The problem can only be for people who see the Muslim period of history as an aberration, rejecting Partition for its lack of a comprehensive solution of the Two Nation thesis. But for those on the other side of the intellectual and philosophical aisle, it is time to call the modern political spade by its name, instead of resorting to the euphemism of good intentions.

It is time, then, for patriots to raise their voice in unison to proclaim that India’s glory is as much in its ancient past as in medieval civilisational integration. For that matter, rejection of colonial impositions on our cultural heritage need not be limited to proponents of ancient Indian civilisation, but must include Muslim civilisation that fought the bloodiest battle against it in 1857. India’s civilisation is equally enriched by Emperor Ashoka and Emperor Akbar. Each generation can decide how much of the past needs celebration and reaffirmation; it would be a matter of collective choice. But red lines to cut off certain parts of our past, arbitrarily drawn and encouraged and supported by political powers of the day, can only dilute and diminish the glory of the idea of India we cherish.

Further, these red lines cannot be allowed to be drawn in a manner to excavate the past and redesign the present to obliterate centuries of composite culture. There is no such entitlement to the popularly elected government, and certainly not for people who take the law into their own hands. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act sought to provide a guardrail at the stroke of the midnight hour on August 15, 1947 — the moment when India stepped into freedom. It was a deeply inspirational act of nation-building on behalf of the new generation of free Indians. If ever there was a departure from the shackles of colonialism, it was that.

Sadly, we lost the moment and momentum in submitting ourselves to the exercise of establishing afresh the status of contested sites at the time of Independence, undermining the far-sightedness and fairness that informed that pragmatic act. Once again, it is no longer a matter of exhuming the past but allowing it to cast a shadow on our march towards becoming a modern, liberal, collaborative nation. Rejecting the Constitution, even in questioning its intent and capacity to deliver justice, social, economic and political to all, we are undermining a valuable asset of nationhood. With great effort and fortitude, we overcame the Partition of our land in 1947 because we did not let our soul be divided. Power, not principle, caused the great divide. Pursuit of power is once again threatening to impose a divide within. It is our Constitution and not self-serving or self-conscious arguments that will prevent that. The final word in the Constitution’s Preamble is the promotion of fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and unity of the nation. That is an obligation of the citizen, unlike the delivery of justice which is upon the state. Let us look within and ask ourselves, “Have we done that?”

The writer is a senior Congress leader and former Union Minister for External Affairs