Congress Vs BJP: Who Will Win Battle Over Ambedkar’s Legacy?

Unintentionally, the PM has triggered a debate on the Constitution, and people who were at the helm of Constitution-making. It has turned the focus not only on Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar and others but also on the Hindutva forces including the RSS

The fight over the legacy of Baba Saheb Ambedkar has given a new turn to Indian politics. Though it is yet to see the course it will take, it will certainly educate the people greatly. The expectation is not based on the narrow consideration of how political parties take benefit of the direct fight between the Indian National Congress, the BJP and the RSS.

This aspect should be discussed separately. We must concentrate on whether people will get to know about the basic tenets of the Constitution that Dr Ambedkar had woven together in asso-ciation with the best minds of the time. It must be lamented that when the leadership expected from the Prime Minister and his associates lacked in its responsibility, an old man from the grand old party, the Indian National Congress had to come forward to bring the debate on the Constitu-tion on the right track. What Prime Minister Modi tried to discuss during the debate on the Constitution was nothing but a routine attack on his main opponent, the Gandhi family, and the Congress. When the Constitu-tion marked its 25th anniversary, the country witnessed one of its darkest periods. The Emergency was imposed, constitutional arrangements were suspended, the nation was turned into a prison, citizens’ rights were stripped away, and press freedom was stifled.

This grave injustice remains an indelible stain on the Congress party’s record. Whenever democ-racy is discussed globally, this betrayal will be remembered as an act of strangling our Constitu-tion and the hard work of the constitution makers,” he asserted.

He did not stop there and even after promising that he had “no intention of making personal criti-cisms”, he went on to say, “One particular family from the Congress party has left no stone un-turned in undermining the Constitution. I mention this family specifically because, out of the 75 years of Bharat's independence, they have ruled the country for 55 years. The people of this na-tion have the right to know the truth about what transpired during that time and the negative tradi-tions, flawed policies, and harmful practices established by this family, which continue to have repercussions even today. At every stage, this family has challenged and harmed the Constitution.”

In his attempt to malign the Gandhi family and first Prime Minister of India Nehru he just twisted the fact and said that from 1947 to 1952, there was no elected government in this country. “Instead, a temporary, selected system was in place, operating as an interim arrangement until elections could be held. During this period, the Rajya Sabha was not yet formed, nor were elec-tions conducted in the states. There was no mandate from the people, despite the Constitution having just been created after extensive deliberations by its makers. In 1951, before an elected government was established, this interim system used an ordinance to amend the Constitution. The result? Freedom of expression was attacked. This act was a grave insult to the Constitution and its makers. The matters they failed to achieve during the debates of the Constituent Assembly were pursued later, through the back door, by exploiting their position. It is worth noting that this was not the decision of a democratically elected Prime Minister but of someone leading an interim government. This was, undoubtedly, a grievous sin.”

His assertions were not only factually incorrect but were full of flowed interpretations. And, based on these flawed inferences and wrong facts, he asserted that this tradition of undermining the Constitution did not end there.

What began with Nehru was continued by Indira Gandhi and, later, by Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gan-dhi inflicted yet another grievous blow to the Constitution.

How could one expect that the political line adopted by Prime Minister Modi would be changed? All the ministers and leaders spoke on the dotted lines and cut a sorry figure for themselves. Congress President and Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge corrected them all by placing the facts before the House of Elders. He reminded them that the provisional parliament that ruled after the adoption of the Constitution was comprised of elected members. The Constituent Assembly was converted into the Provisional Parliament. He rightly pointed out that it had Shyama Prasad Mukherji and BR Ambedkar as its members. He rightly asked whether the Prime Minister wanted to ridicule them.

Kharge’s attempt to keep the debate on track, could not materialise because the ruling BJP was adamant on isolating the Gandhi family and the Congress. Could this approach work in a democ-racy? Prime Minister Nehru or Prime Minister Indira Gandhi might have made mistakes, but they could not be targeted for being members of the same family. They need to be evaluated on the decisions they make while they are in the office.

Mrs. Gandhi would always be criticised for imposing emergency, putting opposition leaders in prison, and suspending freedom of expression. The Congress has apologised for the mistake, and it should be appreciated.

However, Prime Minister Modi’s turning the debate into an attack on the leading family did not work. Unintentionally, he has triggered a debate on the Constitution, and people who were at the helm of Constitution-making. It has turned the focus not only on Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar and others but also on the Hindutva forces including the RSS. It would be embarrassing for the RSS to answer why they did not accept the Tricolor.

They will also have to answer why they did not reject the Constitution. People will ask whether they still believe in Manusmriti. The RSS and the BJP cannot easily answer these questions.

Here, it is imperative to discuss the so-called clashes in Parliament over the speech of Home Minister Amit Shah.

The BJP seems to be on the receiving end because they cannot appropriate Ambedkar’s legacy. It hardly fits in their ideology. Everyone knows that the ideology of Hindutva is incompatible with that of Ambedkar’s ideology.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)