Shiban Khaibri
“Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally
outraged by silence; O, what a goodly exterior falsehood possesses…..”
If you possess a surplus of something, having even more of it can lead to redundancy and superfluousness. Furthermore, falsehood mixed with alarmist rhetoric about “the constitution being threatened” or “the constitution likely to undergo changes” does not represent a fruitful investment in Indian politics, especially not in the foreseeable future. Who is being convinced—or rather, manipulated—through such tactics solely to secure votes? The theatrical display extends to brandishing a small red-covered book, presumably to project a deep-seated love and loyalty for the constitution, which the narrative suggests is pathetically and precariously neglected in its implementation by the current government. The fictional arsenal also includes threats of “reservation being revoked,” while vehemently committing to defend it and planning to eliminate the limits prescribed by the Supreme Court, supported by conducting a caste-based census and following the coined phrase of “Jiskey jitniaabadi, usskiutneehissedari.” Such a slogan, if ever realized, would undoubtedly disrupt societal equilibrium, leading only to chaos and confusion, if not to unmanageable disputes and antagonism. In the absence of a well-structured, debated, and assessed economic policy, along with essential social welfare measures, such speculations arise more out of the dismal election results and rejection by constituents rather than genuine concerns.
Undeniably, this fictional narrative and fear-mongering concerning the constitution and reservation issues yielded some benefits in the 2024 general elections for those who promoted such manufactured theories; however, these claims are proving to be entirely unacceptable and implausible. Observing the immense respect and commitment Prime Minister Narendra Modi has for the country’s constitution, which he acknowledged during his inaugural entry into Parliament in 2014 by bowing before both the Parliament and the constitution, one cannot label any action, decision, or policy enacted by the Modi Government as unconstitutional or contrary to constitutional ideals. If any such action existed, those leaders and parties could approach the Supreme Court for appropriate guidance and orders to rectify any perceived unconstitutional act. We witnessed this in the case of abrogating Article 370, which was achieved through a well-defined constitutional process, with discontented parties subsequently seeking redress from the highest court.
It would be unjust to assert that the current government is beyond criticism. No government can be deemed flawless in all its governance aspects and policy-making. Accordingly, the Modi Government should not be viewed as perfect. The opposition, both inside and outside Parliament, along with the public through media and other constitutionally provided avenues, should assertively yet peacefully and on legitimate grounds express dissent and disagreement, but not utilize it as a political weapon to settle scores or create obstructions in the normal operations, consequently hampering progress. How is the constitution expected to be honored when introducing unprecedented narratives intended to placate or sway specific communities, suspecting that this government is operating based on Manusmriti, the RSS, and the ideologies of freedom fighter Veer Savarkar? It is alarming to assess the wisdom behind creating such narratives, alongside the rationale and logic that support them. Why do some Congress leaders, especially Rahul Gandhi, habitually disparage the nationalist, philanthropic organization—the RSS, while repeatedly dragging the name of Shree Savarkar into negative contexts? What is the aim of such actions? Rahul Gandhi and his party followers have noticeably refrained from mentioning names like M.A. Jinnah, the Muslim League, and various terrorist organizations that have plagued this nation for over forty years, instead focusing solely on RSS, Savarkar, and similar figures. Why does Rahul Gandhi question the justification behind the slogan “Bharat Mata ki Jai,” as if unaware of both the slogan itself and its significance? In contrast to Indira Gandhi’s emphatic assertion not to do anything that would tarnish Bharat Mata’s reputation, Rahul seems oblivious to its importance.
Mocking the Prime Minister and the leading business moguls while associating them with comedic twists of “Bhai Bhai” in a manner intended to generate distrust among people appears constitutional; yet, they portray the current administration’s actions as entirely anti-constitutional. Such narratives lack political maturity or purpose, and linking it to Manusmriti while associating it with Hindus runs the risk of fostering caste prejudice—this is not only unfortunate but also a grave service to our nation.
It should be noted that Manusmriti is not a central text for Hindus in the way one typically finds religious scriptures connected to Sanatan Dharma. Furthermore, the intent and context behind Congress’s apprehension in promoting such narratives remain unclear, apart from political maneuvering. Should one continue to spread doubt and confusion regarding democratic institutions, constitutional entities, and electoral processes, casting suspicion over the neutrality of the election framework, questioning the integrity of EVMs, and deriding the judiciary while portraying the media as “suppressed,” they ultimately serve neither the constitution’s stature nor the public’s understanding. The chanting of curses upon those voting for the BJP, or the threats invoked upon those contemplating such decisions, has met with dismal results in Haryana for those leaders who are now blaming “defective or manipulated EVMs.” Various means were employed, including “favorably considering” a charter of 17 demands and directing votes in a singular direction in Maharashtra, yet they still failed to meet expectations as the public rejected such electoral strategies, ultimately attributing their loss once again to the EVMs. The BJP-led NDA’s dismal performance in Jharkhand oddly happened while all EVMs functioned without a hitch, suggesting that these manipulated claims have severely undercut the Congress party that relied on its regional ally, the JMM. On November 26, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea to revert to paper ballot elections, observing that allegations of EVM tampering arise only when parties lose. The court noted, “When you win elections, EVMs are fine; when you lose, EVMs are tampered with.” In response to the petitioner’s claims that foreign nations still use paper ballots, the bench questioned, “Why would you want to be different from the rest of the world?” Regardless of the Supreme Court’s directives, concerns over EVMs persistently resurface, entailing a lack of faith in constitutional institutions, all while advocate for the constitution’s principles.
On the 14th, the Prime Minister addressed Parliament, revealing the necessary details about who, how, and when actions regarding the constitution were carried out. The constitution’s architects exhibited considerable foresight concerning the partition’s aftermath, influenced by the intransigent positions of Jinnah and the Muslim League. Recognizing the majority community’s historically tolerant and accommodating nature, the Hindus—after extensive debates and exchanges—did not initially incorporate the terms “Secular” and “Socialist.” One must consider who in December 1976 and under what circumstances imposed these critical terms into the preamble through the 42nd amendment. Even as Indian society has perpetually embodied tolerance, respect for diverse beliefs, and the importance of coexistence, it is essential to note that one cannot deride and marginalize Hindus in pursuit of vote banks and hope for substantial support in return. This stark reality presents the true challenge.
Leave a Reply