MS Shanker
The Constitution of India, drafted with great care and vision by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, is being placed under siege by many in the Opposition today. Voices like that of Asaduddin Owaisi, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader, and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, echo a growing concern that the BJP-led government is allegedly tampering with the foundational principles of secularism. But the question arises: Is this outcry truly about protecting the Constitution, or is it a veiled attempt to manipulate political narratives?
For those familiar with India’s constitutional history, the irony is unmistakable. The very parties now decrying alleged threats to the Constitution have themselves orchestrated numerous amendments, often for political gain. The Congress, which ruled India for six decades, used its absolute majority to amend the Constitution over 100 times, tailoring it to suit its agenda. Articles like 370 and 35A, introduced as temporary provisions, were added despite Ambedkar’s objections to special privileges based on religion or allowing states to draft their own constitutions or have separate flags.
The Opposition’s current outcry appears selective, ignoring the inconvenient reality of its past. Can Congress and other opposition parties truly claim to be defenders of Ambedkar’s vision when they have historically altered the Constitution to suit their interests? The Constitution, as originally drafted, was intended to be a living document, not a plaything for power politics.
Asaduddin Owaisi, a law graduate and a prominent voice in the minority Muslims and Opposition, often champions the cause of minority rights. Yet, one cannot overlook the contradictions in his position. The current Constitution, even in its amended form, does not explicitly allow religious-based reservations or the formation of political parties that campaign solely on religious lines. The AIMIM, with its clear focus on Muslim issues, walks a thin line between advocacy and sectarian politics.
Moreover, the history of the AIMIM is not without controversy. Its roots trace back to the Razakars, a militia that opposed the integration of Hyderabad into the Indian Union. This raises uncomfortable questions about Owaisi’s commitment to the secular ideals he claims to uphold. Is the AIMIM’s criticism of the ruling party genuinely about preserving secularism, or is it more about protecting its own voter base?
The Congress party’s track record is equally fraught with contradictions. Its narrative of secularism, especially post-independence, appears more aligned with vote-bank politics than with genuine inclusivity. While the party pandered to certain minority communities, it largely ignored others like Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis, who did not engage in aggressive conversion practices. The selective appeasement of Muslims while sidelining other minorities raises questions about the true intentions behind its so-called secular stance.
Ironically, the Congress that once claimed to be the torchbearer of a secular India was also responsible for the religious partition of the subcontinent. If the idea was to build a secular, social democracy, why then was the nation divided on religious lines? This historical baggage continues to haunt the Congress, as it struggles to redefine itself in a rapidly changing political landscape.
In recent years, there’s been a perceptible shift among the Hindu majority, who, despite their traditionally inclusive outlook, are now rallying against what they perceive as divisive politics by the Opposition. The calls for a Uniform Civil Code, reforms in the Wakf Board, and even the creation of a Sanatan Dharma Board reflect a growing sentiment among many Hindus who feel their cultural and religious identity is under threat.
This is not about marginalizing minorities but about reasserting the rights of a community that sees itself as historically tolerant yet increasingly under siege. If other religious communities can organize to protect their interests, why not the Hindus, who are witnessing demographic shifts in several states like West Bengal, Kerala, and the Northeast?
Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi would do well to introspect before pointing fingers. Instead of perpetuating divisive narratives, they could support initiatives that truly promote national unity, such as the Uniform Civil Code. Proposals like establishing a Sanatan Dharma Board to protect Hindu temples and properties could be a step towards demonstrating genuine inclusivity, rather than pandering to narrow vote banks.
In a democracy, healthy dissent is crucial. But when that dissent morphs into a cynical ploy for political survival, it loses its moral authority. If the Opposition truly believes in the Constitution, it must rise above the politics of fear-mongering and selective outrage. Otherwise, it risks pushing itself into political irrelevance in a nation that is increasingly seeking unity over division.
The time has come for India’s leaders, across party lines, to rise above partisan interests and honour the spirit of the Constitution—not merely in word, but in action.
