The Fight Is Between Modern Constitution And Those Whose Model Is Manuwad

The Fight Is Between Modern Constitution And Those Whose Model Is Manuwad

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

26 November, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Today is the constitution day. Many people have been claiming that India did not progress in sixty years and everything happened after May 2014 when some extraordinary human being took over the reins of the country. It is important to understand why today is the most sacred day for us and what are the challenges before our republic. It is good that government is reaffirming its commitment to the constitution and it would be better if the party in power bluntly tell those extra constitutional forces to stop or face action.

Today, the challenge is to implement this constitution in letter and spirit. We need to heed the warning that Baba Saheb Ambedkar gave us when he handed the copy of the constitution to the nation that we must resolve our contradiction between social and political life. In politics we have attained the equality by one man one vote principle but in social life this equality does not exist and therefore if that is not resolved it is bound to fail our political system. There are forces who want to fail this constitution and then blame it on the constitution.

The constitution is the symbol of Manavavad or humanism and those who believe or repent because this republican secular constitution is supreme over Manuwad, actually they are posing it the biggest threat. It is the Manuwadis who are threat to this manavavadi constitution. Let us be clear. Yes, on this historic ocassion we can not ignore the role that Baba Saheb Ambedkar played as well as Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first prime minister of India. The previous governments might have over worked on Nehru but to undermine his work and thoughts just because your predecessors over hyped him will not serve any purpose. Two giants Ambedkar and Nehru are the builder of modern India and can not be erased from the minds of the people. whatever the critique may say the reality must be said. There will be many who would not like me to club the two leaders together but they worked together and had similarities of ideas. They might have personality clashes but definitely both were forward looking modern men who did not much harped on traditions and culture. It is time to acknowledge this. This is Ambedkar era and in that era if some one come close to Ambedkar's thoughts of modernism in the dispensation, it was Nehru.

There is no denial of facts that today this inclusive vision of our constitution is under the attack. Our directive principles are being curtailed. We have deviated from the path of socialism. Right to education and free health are just in the papers but fact is they are more symbolic than in reality. State is handing over the national resources to private corporations and people are being displaced from their places and denied livelihood in the name of' nation building'.

The middle classes and NRIs have become the 'nation' and those who should have mattered are nowhere in the agenda of the power elite. It is time we rededicate ourselves to the high ideals of our constitution.

Attempt to convert India into a theocracy must be desisted. Religion must be confined to your personal domain and just because some one is religious does not make him the most authentic voices as being presented these days.

Illegally begotten funds are channeled through religious gurus. Those who talked about everything material as bad are now living in the artificial materialistic world giving people 'knowledge' of 'sacrifice' . India should not be allowed to be like the theocracies elsewhere. We should resist any attempt to convert India into a theocracy or crony capitalist democracy.

It is constitution that binds us together and provide us a unique opportunity where we can respect each others customs, learn from it and defend the supremacy of the individual. It is the individual who should matter most said Baba Saheb. Today, it is the individual who is being lynched for being different. It is our liberty and dissent that is being seen as a challenge to those in power. It is disappointing to see how Rajnath Singh was rebuking the secularism aspect of the constitution and how is attempting to say secularism means 'panth-nirpeksh' and not 'dharm-nirpeksh'. We are not bothered about the meanings but assurance that state shall remain outside our bedrooms and prayer places unless its intervention is warranted to protect some one or defend the rights of other. Whether this clause of secularism was brought later by Indira Gandhi does not matter as it has become more important today as the challenges before our nation are enormous and if the government want to discredit the two words of Secularism and Socialism then it violate the spirit of our constitution. It is interesting how the right wing is now determined to give a negative meaning to the very words that change democratic world for ever whether it was Russian revolution or French Revolution the principles are equality which is impossible to be brought by inflicting capitalist agenda and snatching people's resources. How do the government plan to bring equality. Is it ready to take on the religious fringe who do not want Dalits to enter the temples ? If it want economic uplift of the people then it must tell us the road map. Through industralisation and we agree but will we respect the democratic practice of 'Free Prior Informed Consent' if we are planning a project at certain place where we feel people will have to be uprooted ? How do we plan to create new employment for our youngsters ? How will our student learn spirit of inquiry and respecting environment when we are ourself destroying our forests.

The nation must be reassured of its republicanism. If the leaders at the top ask the lower rung to stop making threatening noises and using abusive language against those who differ with their Manuwadi vision of India. We must understand that Manu's vision of India is absolutely contradictory to what Baba Saheb visualised in this modern constitution. It is the fight between those who believe in liberty, equality , fraternity and those who do not believe in it. You have to decide which direction you want to go.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat is a social and human rights activist. He blogs at www.manukhsi.blogspot.com twitter @freetohumanity Email: vbrawat@gmail.com

INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The Constitution Of India Day: Remain Vigilant Against Hindutva Which Always Denigrated It

By Shamsul Islam

26 November, 2015
Countercurrents.org

This 26th November (2015) is the 66th anniversary of the passing of the democratic-secular Constitution by the Indian Constituent Assembly. This could materialize due to the vision of our Founding Fathers led by Dr. BR Ambedkar. RSS and its fraternal organization, Hindu Mahasabha were very angry when Indian Constituent Assembly adopted a democratic-Secular Constitution. They continued describing the Constituent Assembly as 'so-called Constituent Assembly'. The Indian Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, whereas four days later, RSS English organ, Organizer in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained:

“The worst about the new constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it. The drafters of the constitution have incorporated in it elements of British, American, Canadian, Swiss and sundry other constitutions. But there is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it...in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

RSS and Hindu Mahasabha continued demanding promulgation of Manusmriti as the constitution of India. The Hindutva ideologue, VD Savarkar claimed:

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law”. [VD Savarkar, 'Women in Manusmriti' in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar's writings in Hindi), vol. 4, Prabhat, Delhi, p. 416.]

Just on the eve of Republic day in 1950, the Organiser published a special feature by Sankar Subba Aiyar, a retired High Court Judge, in which loyalty towards Manu’s Codes was reaffirmed:

‘Even though Dr. Ambedkar is reported to have recently stated in Bombay that the days of Manu have ended it is nevertheless a fact that the daily lives of Hindus are even at the present day affected by the principles and injunctions contained in the Manusmrithi and other Smrithis. Even an unorthodox Hindu feels himself bound at least in some matters by the rules contained in the Smrithis and he feels powerless to give up altogether his adherence to them.’ [‘Manu Rules Our Hearts’ Organizer, February 6, 1950, p. 7.]

Even after Independence when a democratic-secular Constitution was in force it continued denigrating India Constitution. This can be seen in the following statement of MS Golwalkar, the most prominent ideologue of the RSS:

“Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions of the Western countries. It has absolutely nothing which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No!” [MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 238.]

The RSS continued vigorously its campaign for the enforcement of Manu Codes in India which denigrated not only lower castes but also women. What kind of society Manu ordered to be built upon can very well be understood by having a glimpse of the laws prescribed by Manu for the Sudras. Some of these de-humanising laws distinguishing Sudras (once-born) from Brahmanas and other high castes (twice-born), which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

(1) For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds [the divine one] caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet (I/31).

(2) One occupation only the Lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these [other]) three castes (I/91).

(3) Let the first part of Brahmana’s name [denote something] auspicious, a Kashatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaisya’s with wealth, but a Sudra’s [express something] contemptible (II/31).

(4) The kingdom of that monarch, who looks on while a Sudra settles the law, will sink [low], like a cow in a morass (VIII/21).

(5) That kingdom where Sudras are very numerous, which is infested by atheists and destitutes of twice-born [inhabitants], soon entirely perishes, afflicted by famine and disease (VIII/22).

(6) Once-born man [a Sudra], who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin (VIII/270).

(7) If he [a Sudra] mentions the names and castes [jati] of the [twice-born] with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth (VIII/271).

(8) If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears (VIII/272).

(9) With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to [a man of the three] highest [castes], even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu (VIII/279).

(10) He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off (VIII/280).

(11) A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or [the king] shall cause his buttock to be gashed (VIII/281).

(12) If out of arrogance he spits [on a superior], the king shall cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urines [on him], the penis; if he breaks wind [against him], the anus (VIII/282).

(13) If he lays hold of the hair [of a superior], let the [king] unhesitatingly cut off his hands, likewise [if he takes him] by the feet, the beard, the neck, or the scrotum (VIII/283).

(14) A man who is not a Brahmana ought to suffer death for adultery [samgrahana]; for the wives of all the four castes even must always be carefully guarded (VIII/359).

(15) A [man of] low [caste] who makes love to a maiden [of] the highest [caste] shall suffer corporal punishment; he who addresses a maiden [on] equal [caste] shall pay the nuptial fee, if her father desires it (VIII/366).

(16) A Sudra who has intercourse with a woman of a twice-born caste [varna], guarded or unguarded, [shall be punished in the following manner]: if she was unguarded, he loses the part [offending] and all his property; if she was guarded, everything [even his life] (VIII/374).

(17) Tonsure [of the head] is ordained for a Brahmana [instead of] capital punishment; but [men of] other castes shall suffer capital punishment (VIII/379).

(18) Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he has committed all [possible] crimes; let him banish such an [offender], leaving all his property [to him] and [his body] unhurt (VIII/380).

(19) A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it? (VIII/414).

Manu Laws do not denigrate Sudras only but are also terribly anti-women as we will see in the following. If RSS is committed to enforce Manu Codes, one can imagine what is in store for Hindu women:

I By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. (V/147)

II In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. (V/148)

III Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (IX/2)

IV Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)

V Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families. (IX/5)

VI Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)

VII He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit. (IX/7)

VIII As the male is to whom a wife cleaves, even so is the son whom she brings forth; let him therefore carefully guard his wife, in order to keep his offspring pure. (IX/9)

IX No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:

X Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfillment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils. (IX/10, 11)

XI Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded. (IX/12)

XII Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)

XIII Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)

XIV Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at the creation, to be such, (every) man should most strenuously exert himself to guard them. (IX/16)

XV (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)

XVI For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule. (IX/18).

[This selection of Manu’s Codes is from F. Max Muller, Laws of Manu, Delhi: LP Publications, 1996; first published in 1886]

The Modi government has issued an order to commemorate this historic occasion. It has been forced to do it fearing backlash from the people of India. But the Indian masses must be on guard to ensure that the present Hindutva rulers of India are unable to destroy our democratic-secular constitution from within. These rulers are master liars and specialize in double/triple speak. They are simultaneously raising questions about secularism, democracy, reservation and justice. On the 66th anniversary of finalization of our Constitution we must pledge to scuttle all attempts to undo this fundamental law of the land.

Shamsul Islam is a retired Professor of University of Delhi.Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com