Anish Esteves (email dated 06 Aug) referred to August 5 as a 'dark day
in Indian History'. It was the day a year ago when Modi downgraded the
Kashmir government. So it was a very bright day for Modi and his BJP
gang who love degrading Indian Muslims in every way. Most of these BJP
high officials (Modi, Shah, Yogi, Rajnath...) are essentially country
bumpkins catapulted to high office who would be probably more at home
with peasants and sadhus in ashrams and cowsheds.
Anish then added that Modi "has taken an oath to uphold the
Constitution". (A national constitution is a set of fundamental
principles that prescribe how the nation is to be governed.)
What could this Constitution mean to an uneducated bigot like Modi? It
is written in English because Indian languages simply lacked the needed
vocabulary. The team, headed by Dr Ambedkar, had scoured Euro documents
and soon found that Indian languages were too primitive to match the
lofty sentiments they intended to include. They decided to copy the
Constitution largely from the (British) India Act 1935 and certain other
European documents. The preamble reads:
"We, the people of India,have solemnly resolved to constitute India into
a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic..."
Do Indians use such words? Can any of these pompous words be translated
into Hindi, Tamil or Bengali? With English literacy standing at 12% in
1949, few Indians could read the document, leave alone understand it.
Wasn't it presumptuous to say the people of India resolved to make India
a republic? What people? The fact is that Hindu India was largely a
primitive country governed by Europeans for over 200 years. And
Ambedkar's team wanted to make a good impression on the British and
other Europeans.
The Hindus had never even considered themselves a nation until the
British created one in the 19th century using the Westphalian notions of
sovereignty and territorial integrity - two totally alien concepts for
Hindus. The Hindus had been subjugated for a 1000 years by a host of
invaders, first Muslim, then British. Hindu lives were a weird mix of
rituals & festivals associated with assorted gods, and run by temple
priests, swamis and such. There were no higher institutions of learning.
Every institution was created by the British as well as the idea of
parliamentary democracy.The 1857 rebellion did generate some sense of
national consciousness. The British generously decided to educate a
select group of Indians in England for self-government. This exposure to
education opened the minds of persons like Nehru and Ambedkar who
encountered disciplines like the classics, history & philosophy and
concepts like democracy and parliament for the first time.
Virtually every facility & institution in India has been set up by the
British: infrastructure, the State, admin, educational & legal systems,
Parliamentary system (complete with two Houses & Speaker), army, etc
Nehru transplanted the British democratic system but was not bright
enough to adapt it to Indian conditions such as the rigid caste system.
The British had banned the barbaric Hindu practices, SATI (burning of
widows but not widowers) and THUGEE (murdering wayfarers to propitiate
some goddess Kali) but they left caste alone to use it for their own
advantage.
Ambedkar scoured Euro sources for drafting a constitution for India
and ended with a document couched in pompous language (with words like
secular, socialist), totally alien to the average Indian's
understanding. It had to be written in English as Indian languages
couldn't accommodate lofty concepts.
The Constitution was made public in 1949 when India's English literacy
was 12%.
Understandably, to people like Modi (with probably no degree), the
Constitution is an alien document which he cannot respect and taking an
oath under it has no meaning.
Sri Lankan writer Rohini Hensman wrote:
- "India will continue to be what it has always been, a big little
country bobbing along like cork in water - all buoyancy and drift, but
no substance."
Eddie
=================================================
------ Original Message ------
From: "252Anish Esteves" <anisheste...@gmail.com>
To: goanet@lists.goanet.org
Sent: Thursday, 6 Aug, 20 At 12:26
Subject: Re: [Goanet] India moving towards majoritarianism? (Anish
Esteves)
Yesterday August 5 was another dark day in Indian History. Last
year,
the Government of India scrapped Article 370 unilaterally and detained
politicians in the erstwhile state. Sadly, after last year's insult to
crores of people in the valley, the BJP and Sangh Parivar chose the
same
date for the laying of the foundation stone of the Ram Temple in
Ayodhta.
A prime minister, who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution,
chose to project himself as the hero of a divisive movement that
bulldozed
India’s foundational values. Wednesday’s events mark a decisive shift
towards majoritarian politics.
Anish Esteves
